at91sam9g20: Upcoming Patches
M. Warner Losh
imp at bsdimp.com
Tue Jul 20 00:25:07 UTC 2010
In message: <AANLkTilj6crfPkCfViYU8LkFxZ6LY8WxRAghiZXaSDn_ at mail.gmail.com>
Yohanes Nugroho <yohanes at gmail.com> writes:
: On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:36 PM, Bernd Walter <ticso at cicely7.cicely.de> wrote:
: >> if_ate.c:
: >> * Support for sam9 "EMAC" controller.
: >> * Support for rmii interface to phy.
: > RM9200 ate requires specific DMA alignment, which required a few
: > realign copys.
: > This isn't neccessary for most other AT91 devices and for sure
: > not with any AT91SAM9x device.
: > Not sure if all of them are automatically avoided - you might want
: > to verify the code about this point.
: > There is also RBNA workaround, which should be RM9200 specifc,
: > which shouldn't be triggered with others, but you might want to save
: > a few bytes codespace.
: And looking at Linux's code, they separate for the RM9200 driver and
: newer AT9 (macb) drivers. I haven't looked deeply, but it seems that
: if we are going to support all variations of RM9200 PHY for link
: checking purpose, there will a lot of RM9200 specific code.
Unlike Linux, all that's abstracted out in FreeBSD, so it is easy to
support dozens of different PYHs. In fact, I don't think there's any
PHY specific code in the current ATE driver...
: I agree that there are many things in common between these two
: drivers, but I don't know if it is a good idea to keep everything in
: one file.
Yea, I worry about the performance on newer parts of the older code,
which has stinky performance due to hardware limitations.
More information about the freebsd-arm