Hi Claudiu, > -----Original Message----- > From: Claudiu Beznea [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 2:21 PM > To: Harini Katakam <[email protected]>; Jennifer Dahm > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; David S . Miller <[email protected]>; Nathan > Sullivan <[email protected]>; Rafal Ozieblo <[email protected]>; > Harini Katakam <[email protected]>; Nicolas Ferre > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] net: macb: Disable TX checksum offloading on all > Zynq > > Hi Harini, > > On 01.08.2018 15:53, Harini Katakam wrote: > > Hi Jennifer, > > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Harini Katakam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Jeniffer, > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Nicolas Ferre > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Jennifer, > >>> > >>> On 25/05/2018 at 23:44, Jennifer Dahm wrote: > >>>> > >>>> During testing, I discovered that the Zynq GEM hardware overwrites > >>>> all outgoing UDP packet checksums, which is illegal in packet > >>>> forwarding cases. This happens both with and without the > >>>> checksum-zeroing behavior introduced in > >>>> 007e4ba3ee137f4700f39aa6dbaf01a71047c5f6 > >>>> ("net: macb: initialize checksum when using checksum offloading"). > >>>> The only solution to both the small packet bug and the packet > >>>> forwarding bug that I can find is to disable TX checksum offloading > entirely. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for the extensive testing. > >> I'll try to reproduce and see if it is something to be fixed in the driver. > >> > >>> Are the bugs listed above present in all revisions of the GEM IP, > >>> only for some revisions? > >>> Is there an errata that describe this issue for the Zynq GEM? > >> > >> @Nicolas, AFAIK, there is no errata for this in either Cadence or > >> Zynq documentation. > > > > I was unable to reproduce this issue on Zynq. > > Although I do not have HW with two GEM ports, I tried by routing one > > GEM via PL and another via on board RGMII. > > Since there was no specific errata related to this, I also tried on > > subsequent ZynqMP versions with multiple GEM ports but dint find any > > checksum issues. I discussed the same with cadence and they tried the > > test with 2 bytes of UDP payload on the Zynq GEM IP version in their > > regressions and did not hit any issue either. > > > > I tried to reach out earlier to see if you can share your exact > > application. Could you please let me know if you have any further > > updates? > > I manage to reproduce the issue and provide a patch for this (see patch 3/3 > from > [1]). > > [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg513848.html Sorry, I missed your series. Thanks.
Regards, Harini
