From: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
To: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 13/20] e1000: Fix a bug in e1000_probe()
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2016 19:52:34 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1453089161-6697-13-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1453089161-6697-1-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
There are several reasons why that code in e1000_probe had to be
changed:
- It reads from chip variant specific register (present only on
i210) in a chip variant agnostic codepath
- It makes no sense to check for FLUPD bit to make a decision weither
to validate EEPROM or not since its function per datasheet is:
" ... Flash Update.
Writing 1b to this bit causes the content of the internal 4 KB
shadow RAM to be written into one of the first two 4 KB sectors
of the Flash device (Sector 0 or Sector 1). The bit is
self-cleared immediately... "
and it is only through sheer serendipity the defined value for
bitmask for FLUPD is equivalent to bitmask for FLASH_DETECTED bit
which is the bit we actually care about and need to test against
(FLUPD for i210 has a different bitmask)
Fix those problems by replacing the i210 specific check inside of
e1000_validate_eeprom_checksum() with a chip agnostic one and using
correct bitmask.
Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
---
drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h | 1 +
drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
drivers/net/e1000/main.c | 3 +--
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h
index 8ec45a7..92e2100 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000.h
@@ -800,6 +800,7 @@ struct e1000_eeprom_info {
#define E1000_EECD_SELSHAD 0x00020000 /* Select Shadow RAM */
#define E1000_EECD_INITSRAM 0x00040000 /* Initialize Shadow RAM */
#define E1000_EECD_FLUPD 0x00080000 /* Update FLASH */
+#define E1000_EECD_I210_FLASH_DETECTED (1 << 19) /* FLASH detected */
#define E1000_EECD_AUPDEN 0x00100000 /* Enable Autonomous FLASH update */
#define E1000_EECD_SHADV 0x00200000 /* Shadow RAM Data Valid */
#define E1000_EECD_SEC1VAL 0x00400000 /* Sector One Valid */
diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c b/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c
index 87ea82f..4a1c7e6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000/eeprom.c
@@ -359,8 +359,13 @@ int32_t e1000_init_eeprom_params(struct e1000_hw *hw)
eeprom->use_eerd = true;
break;
case e1000_igb:
- /* i210 has 4k of iNVM mapped as EEPROM */
- eeprom->type = e1000_eeprom_invm;
+ if (eecd & E1000_EECD_I210_FLASH_DETECTED) {
+ eeprom->type = e1000_eeprom_flash;
+ eeprom->word_size = 2048;
+ } else {
+ eeprom->type = e1000_eeprom_invm;
+ }
+
eeprom->use_eerd = true;
break;
default:
@@ -661,6 +666,15 @@ int e1000_validate_eeprom_checksum(struct e1000_hw *hw)
DEBUGFUNC();
+ /*
+ Only the following three 'types' of EEPROM can be expected
+ to have correct EEPROM checksum
+ */
+ if (hw->eeprom.type != e1000_eeprom_spi &&
+ hw->eeprom.type != e1000_eeprom_microwire &&
+ hw->eeprom.type != e1000_eeprom_flash)
+ return 0;
+
/* Read the EEPROM */
if (e1000_read_eeprom(hw, 0, EEPROM_CHECKSUM_REG + 1, buf) < 0) {
dev_err(&hw->edev.dev, "Unable to read EEPROM!\n");
diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000/main.c b/drivers/net/e1000/main.c
index 9791b60..4518be8 100644
--- a/drivers/net/e1000/main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000/main.c
@@ -3558,8 +3558,7 @@ static int e1000_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id)
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "EEPROM is invalid!\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
- if ((E1000_READ_REG(hw, EECD) & E1000_EECD_FLUPD) &&
- e1000_validate_eeprom_checksum(hw))
+ if (e1000_validate_eeprom_checksum(hw))
return -EINVAL;
e1000_get_ethaddr(edev, edev->ethaddr);
--
2.5.0
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-18 3:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1453089161-6697-1-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 02/20] e1000: Fix a bug in e1000_detect_gig_phy Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 03/20] e1000: Remove unnecessary variable Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 04/20] e1000: Do not read same register twice Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 05/20] e1000: Remove unneeded i210 specific register code Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 06/20] e1000: Consolidate register offset fixups Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 07/20] e1000: Remove 'use_eewr' parameter Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 08/20] e1000: Remove 'page_size' Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 09/20] e1000: Simplify EEPROM init for e1000_80003es2lan Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 10/20] e1000: Simplify EEPROM init for e1000_igb Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 11/20] e1000: Consolidate SPI EEPROM init code Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 12/20] e1000: Consolidate Microwire " Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` Andrey Smirnov [this message]
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 14/20] e1000: Remove unnecessary intialization Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 15/20] e1000: Refactor Flash/EEPROM reading code Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 16/20] e1000: Add functions for register polling Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-19 8:21 ` Sascha Hauer
2016-01-19 18:53 ` Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-20 7:32 ` Sascha Hauer
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 17/20] e1000: Properly release SW_FW_SYNC semaphore bits Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 18/20] e1000: Add EEPROM access locking for i210 Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 19/20] e1000: Expose i210's external flash as MTD Andrey Smirnov
2016-01-18 3:52 ` [PATCH 20/20] e1000: Expose i210's iNVM as a cdev Andrey Smirnov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1453089161-6697-13-git-send-email-andrew.smirnov@gmail.com \
--to=andrew.smirnov@gmail.com \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox