[OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCH v2] ath79: add support for OCEDO Ursus

[Petr Štetiar]

David Bauer <mail at david-bauer.net> [2019-04-02 21:47:23]:

Hi,

> I've tried your suggenstions

well, it was rather copy&paste from that ancient PR to just make the
difference obvious at first sight, and why I was wondering about the
difference.

> The OCEDO Ursus / Riverbed AP5r is a bit odd here as the MDIO lines for
> the GMAC1 PHY is connected to the MDIO interface of GMAC0 (nothing
> connected to GMAC1 MDIO). This is also how it's interfaced in the ar71xx
> PR from last year ago.

ok, I'll add this little detail to the commit message.

> >> +	pll-data = <0xa6000000 0x80000101 0x80001313>;
> > 
> > 	pll-data = <0xae000000 0xa0000101 0xa0001313>;
> 
> I'm experiencing low throughput with this. The PLL-values from the PR
> also match the ones i get via devmem from the vendor SteelWrt.

thanks for the verification.

> >> +	mtd-mac-address = <&art 0x12>;
> > 
> > 	mtd-mac-address = <&art 0xc>; ?
> 
> Because of that, I've decided to distribute the 3 i had for the Raccoon
> and Koala across eth0/wlan0/wlan1. This patch seems to match the scheme
> of the existing two, adding the forth IP address to eth1, which i would
> also aim for.

ok.

> >> +	phy-handle = <&phy2>;
> >> +	pll-data = <0x3000101 0x101 0x1313>;
> > 
> > what is expected phy-mode here?
> > 
> > 	pll-data = <0x0300000 0x101 0x1313>;
> 
> I get around ~2% of packet-loss with these. I know they are used in the
> ar71xx PR, but as the ones currently used in this patch are matching the
> ones from SteelWrt I'm more confident with whats present here.

ok, so it seems like this patch is fine with you and you've already tested it
as it is, so can I add your Tested-by or Reviewed-by as well?

-- ynezz

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel