[PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add rk3576 evb2 board

[Chaoyi Chen]

On 1/8/2026 3:42 PM, Chaoyi Chen wrote:
> Hello Alexey, Andrew,
> 
> On 1/8/2026 2:53 PM, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 10:18 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +&gmac0 {
>>>> +     clock_in_out = "output";
>>>> +     phy-mode = "rgmii-rxid";
>>>
>>> rgmii-rxid is odd. Does the PCB really have an extra long TX clock
>>> line, but a short RX clock line?
>>>
>>> Try changing this to rgmii-id, and drop the tx_delay property.
>>
>> Actually it would be great if Rockchip could clarify the delay
>> duration introduced by a single delay element in GMAC-IOMUX delay
>> lines, which are controlled in the GMAC driver by the {tx,rx}_delay
>> properties. Maybe we could then switch to using
>> {tx,rx}_internal_delay_ps for fine-tuning the delays on the GMAC side
>> as envisaged in DT bindings [1], and use phy-mode = "rgmii-id"
>> throughout. Chaoyi, any chance you could ask around in your hardware
>> team?
>>
>> Currently though removing the delays at GMAC side altogether causes
>> unstable link operation - see [2] for example.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ethernet-controller.yaml#L342-L347
>> [2] https://gitlab.collabora.com/hardware-enablement/rockchip-3588/linux/-/commit/372f3e9ae62cc62cdf2543391ea57be6bb548a0c
> 
> Sorry, this problem has been discussed many times before. It's because 
> the gmac on the Rockchip platform currently relies on setting the 
> corresponding delay via phy-mode [3].
> 
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/mqoyjn7mnq6tmt6n6oev4wa3herjaxlupml2fmcampwiajvj4a@r5zs4d3jdm5p/
> 
> The delay introduced by the delay line is not absolute. In reality,
> it depends on factors such as the chip's design and process technology.
> 
> And for RK3576, you can assume that:
> 	
> 	time(ns) = 0.0579 * delay_line_count + 0.105
> 
> For example, tx_delay = <0x20> means:
> 
> 	time = 0.0579 * 0x20 + 0.105 ns = 1.9578 ns
> 
> And I believe {tx,rx}_internal_delay_ps is indeed a good idea. 
> I'll try to add them in v3. Thanks.
>

I've also see some dt that use {tx,rx}_internal_delay_ps inside the PHY,
and compared to doing it in the MAC, which one is the better choice?

-- 
Best, 
Chaoyi