[meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?

Wed Oct 15 03:12:36 PDT 2014

Please post your patches to meta-fsl-ppc. Yocto 1.6(daisy) is used by SDK 1.7, the SDK 1.7 content will be submitted to master of meta-fsl-ppc when SDK 1.7 is formally released. 

Best Regards,

Zhenhua

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cochran [mailto:yocto at mindchasers.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:20 AM
> To: Luo Zhenhua-B19537; meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?
> 
> On 10/14/2014 03:55 AM, zhenhua.luo at freescale.com wrote:
> > Bob,
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> >
> > FSL SDK developer will fix the issue in QorIQ SDK 1.7(Dec-2014).
> 
> 
> If that's the case, I'll set a goal to post my own patches to meta-fsl-ppc, but I
> would like to clean up the hangs I experience during network testing first (not
> sure when I'll have all this worked out).
> 
> Can we please use the Yocto project / FSL Community to test a beta of SDK1.7?
> SDK1.6 on T1040RDB certainly would have benefited from additional testing.
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Zhenhua
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bob Cochran [mailto:yocto at mindchasers.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:36 PM
> >> To: Luo Zhenhua-B19537; meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> >> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> >> Subject: Re: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?
> >>
> >> On 09/19/2014 06:04 AM, zhenhua.luo at freescale.com wrote:
> >>> Hi Bob,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the great finding.
> >>>
> >>> Defining the CONFIG_FMAN_T4240 for T1 is inaccurate and potentially
> >> dangerous for the correct function. The manual explicitly states for
> >> TNTSKS that exceeding the max supported values is not permitted, but
> >> it doesn't actually state that the reset value is the maximum permissible
> value.
> >>>
> >>> As for the correct way to define things, we probably need to share
> >> integrations across common SoCs per, e.g., Table A-5 in the T1040
> >> DPAA RM to make SW match our docs properly. A configuration "T4240"
> >> is likely a bad one anyway if we should name it effectively
> "FMAN_V3H_384KiB" vs.
> >> "FMAN_V3H_512KiB" for B4860 rev 2.  So it is good to change
> >> "FMAN_V3L" for
> >> T1 to match the documentation and part behavior.
> >>>
> >>> Also the correct way is to stop configuring such things at compile
> >>> time to
> >> avoid separate kernel build for every FMan revision.
> >>
> >>
> >> Zhenhua,
> >>
> >> I believe a similar issue exists with the dts files.
> >>
> >> fsl/qoriq-fman3-0.dtsi defines two O/H ports that don't exist on the T1040.
> >>
> >> After setting CONFIG_FMAN_V3L,  FM_MAX_NUM_OF_OH_PORTS was
> defined as
> >> 4 in T4240/dpaa_integration_ext.h.  This matches what I see in the
> >> T1040 SoC RM.
> >>
> >> However, during boot, I see errors reported on the command line from
> >> the FM
> >> module:
> >>
> >> Freescale FM module (Sep 26 2014:14:25:29), FMD API version 21.1.0
> >> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01,
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272
> >> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value;
> >> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc at ffe000000/fman at 400000/port at 86000,
> >> cell-index) failedcpu1/1:
> >>
> >> fsl-fman-port: probe of ffe486000.port failed with error -5
> >> cpu1/1: ! MAJOR FM Error [CPU01,
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/src/wrapper/lnxwrp_fm_port.c:272
> >> ReadFmPortDevTreeNode]: Invalid Value;
> >> cpu1/1: of_get_property(/soc at ffe000000/fman at 400000/port at 87000,
> >> cell-index) failedcpu1/1:
> >>
> >> If I remove the extra O/H ports in my dts file, the errors go away.
> >>
> >> So, if we follow your suggestion, I believe we should add a
> >> qoriq-fman3l-0.dtsi file that excludes the non-existent O/H ports.
> >>
> >> However, I need some feedback because my T1040 DPAA Reference
> Manual
> >> Table A-47 states that the number of O/H ports are SoC specific, so
> >> maybe some V3L devices actually have these extra O/H ports???
> >>
> >> And fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi also specifies the extra two O/H ports, but
> >> that's a straight forward patch.
> >>
> >> Finally, who will do these patches for proper V3H/V3L support (me or
> >> FSL)?  If I do it, I'm just going to work through the issues with the
> >> T1040 / V3L (I can't address B4860 rev 2 - don't have the specs &
> >> don't want them).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Zhenhua
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: meta-freescale-bounces at yoctoproject.org
> >>>> [mailto:meta-freescale- bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Bob
> >>>> Cochran
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:44 AM
> >>>> To: meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> >>>> Subject: [meta-freescale] Should all T4240 errata be applied to T1040?
> >>>>
> >>>> I find that during initialization of my T1040rdb-64b using the
> >>>> kernel built with meta-fsl-ppc master, the FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS field
> >>>> (total number of BMI
> >>>> tasks) is being overwritten to 0x7b (the reset value is documented
> >>>> as 0x3b in the T1040 reference manual).
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe this is being overwritten due to sharing the errata
> >>>> definitions with the T4240, but this particular erratum may not
> >>>> apply to the T1040 and may cause undesirable side effects.
> >>>>
> >>>> The T4240 uses DPAA FMAN_v3H, and the T1040 uses DPAA FMAN_v3L.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is my understanding of how this erratum (A005127) is being
> >>>> applied to the
> >>>> T1040:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) t1040_64bit_smp_defconfig defines CONFIG_FMAN_T4240
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) By defining CONFIG_FMAN_T4240,
> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/ncsw_config.mk adds
> >>>> -I$(FMAN)/inc/integrations/T4240 to EXTRA_CFLAGS.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) dpaa_integration_ext.h is included throughout the fman source
> >>>> files from
> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fman/inc/integrations/T4240
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) This defines FM_WRONG_RESET_VALUES_ERRATA_FMAN_A005127,
> but
> >> it is
> >>>> my understanding that this erratum does not apply to the T1040.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5) This results in FMBM_CFG2.TNTASKS being overwritten with a value
> >>>> approximately twice its default value, and my concern is that the
> >>>> FMAN_V3L does not have the resources to support this many tasks.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In general, I'm also wondering whether the other errata in the
> >>>> integration file is appropriate for the T1040 and whether the
> >>>> FMAN_v3L devices should have their own integration tree.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> meta-freescale mailing list
> >>>> meta-freescale at yoctoproject.org
> >>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-freescale
> >>>
> >
> >