[PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

[PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

[Nicolai Buchwitz]

Jumbo packets need two bits that default to off, extended packet length in
the auxiliary control register and PCS transmit FIFO elasticity in the
extended control register. The latter raises the transmit limit from 4.5
KB to 9 KB at the cost of 16 ns of 1000BASE-T transmit latency, and the
two together take copper mode to 10 KB.

Without them such frames are lost on a 100M link while the same frames
pass at 1G. On a Raspberry Pi CM5, which uses a BCM54210PE, 9142 byte
frames at 100M are lost 20 out of 20 with the MAC counting every one
as transmitted. The same frames over the same path at 1G arrive intact.

Set both, which bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() already does for bcm7xxx. The
frames then arrive and the payloads check out byte for byte.

Signed-off-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>
---
 drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
index d1a4edb34ad2..b515e3875504 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
@@ -537,6 +537,13 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
 
 	bcm54xx_ptp_config_init(phydev);
 
+	/* Transmit is limited to 4.5 KB without it, see the BCM54210PE
+	 * datasheet section 5.4.12.14.
+	 */
+	err = bcm_phy_enable_jumbo(phydev);
+	if (err < 0)
+		return err;
+
 	/* Acknowledge any left over interrupt and charge the device for
 	 * wake-up.
 	 */
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

[netdev-bot+sashiko]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
issue(s) to consider:

Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0

- [Medium] The new unconditional bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() call in
  bcm54xx_config_init() (drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c:543) sets…

--

net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

This adds an unconditional bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() call to
bcm54xx_config_init(), which sets the extended packet length bit in the
auxiliary control register and the PCS transmit FIFO elasticity bit in the
extended control register so that jumbo frames are not dropped at 100M.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
> index d1a4edb34ad2e..b515e38755041 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
> @@ -537,6 +537,13 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
>  
>  	bcm54xx_ptp_config_init(phydev);
>  
> +	/* Transmit is limited to 4.5 KB without it, see the BCM54210PE
> +	 * datasheet section 5.4.12.14.
> +	 */
> +	err = bcm_phy_enable_jumbo(phydev);
> +	if (err < 0)
> +		return err;
> +

[Severity: Medium]
This lands directly after bcm54xx_ptp_config_init() has armed the
TimeSync block on PTP-capable parts such as the BCM54210E, whose driver
entry in broadcom_drivers uses this same .config_init.  How does the added
elastic FIFO delay interact with the PHY timestamping path?

bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() in drivers/net/phy/bcm-phy-lib.c ends with:

	/* Enable the elastic FIFO for raising the transmission limit from
	 * 4.5KB to 10KB, at the expense of an additional 16 ns in propagation
	 * latency.
	 */
	return phy_set_bits(phydev, MII_BCM54XX_ECR, MII_BCM54XX_ECR_FIFOE);

If that FIFO sits in the copper PCS transmit path downstream of the 1588
egress capture point, would egress timestamps then be reported
systematically early by that fixed delay?  A link where only one end has
MII_BCM54XX_ECR_FIFOE set would also become asymmetric.

Grepping drivers/net/phy/bcm-phy-ptp.c for latency or compensat returns no
matches, so there appears to be no TX/RX latency correction programmed
anywhere in the PHY PTP driver that could absorb the new delay.

There is also no gating here: no MTU or jumbo condition, no device tree
property and no ethtool knob, and the bit is re-armed on every
config_init() and via bcm54xx_resume().  tg3 sets the same hardware bit
only when tg3_flag(tp, JUMBO_CAPABLE) is set.

Would it make sense to gate the FIFO elasticity bit on an actual
jumbo/large-MTU requirement, or to account for the extra delay in the PTP
path?

>  	/* Acknowledge any left over interrupt and charge the device for
>  	 * wake-up.
>  	 */

Also, the changelog says the elasticity bit raises the transmit limit
"from 4.5 KB to 9 KB", while the in-tree comment on the same register
write in bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() says 4.5KB to 10KB.  Which figure is
intended, and could the two be reconciled?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260914094703.1093504-1-nb%40tipi-net.de

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

[Nicolai Buchwitz]

On 15.9.2026 11:47, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
> issue(s) to consider:
> 
> Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 0
> 
> - [Medium] The new unconditional bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() call in
>   bcm54xx_config_init() (drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c:543) sets…
> 
> --
> 
> net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx
> 
> This adds an unconditional bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() call to
> bcm54xx_config_init(), which sets the extended packet length bit in the
> auxiliary control register and the PCS transmit FIFO elasticity bit in 
> the
> extended control register so that jumbo frames are not dropped at 100M.
> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
>> index d1a4edb34ad2e..b515e38755041 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/broadcom.c
>> @@ -537,6 +537,13 @@ static int bcm54xx_config_init(struct phy_device 
>> *phydev)
>> 
>>  	bcm54xx_ptp_config_init(phydev);
>> 
>> +	/* Transmit is limited to 4.5 KB without it, see the BCM54210PE
>> +	 * datasheet section 5.4.12.14.
>> +	 */
>> +	err = bcm_phy_enable_jumbo(phydev);
>> +	if (err < 0)
>> +		return err;
>> +
> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> This lands directly after bcm54xx_ptp_config_init() has armed the
> TimeSync block on PTP-capable parts such as the BCM54210E, whose driver
> entry in broadcom_drivers uses this same .config_init.  How does the 
> added
> elastic FIFO delay interact with the PHY timestamping path?
> 
> bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() in drivers/net/phy/bcm-phy-lib.c ends with:
> 
> 	/* Enable the elastic FIFO for raising the transmission limit from
> 	 * 4.5KB to 10KB, at the expense of an additional 16 ns in propagation
> 	 * latency.
> 	 */
> 	return phy_set_bits(phydev, MII_BCM54XX_ECR, MII_BCM54XX_ECR_FIFOE);
> 
> If that FIFO sits in the copper PCS transmit path downstream of the 
> 1588
> egress capture point, would egress timestamps then be reported
> systematically early by that fixed delay?  A link where only one end 
> has
> MII_BCM54XX_ECR_FIFOE set would also become asymmetric.
> 
> Grepping drivers/net/phy/bcm-phy-ptp.c for latency or compensat returns 
> no
> matches, so there appears to be no TX/RX latency correction programmed
> anywhere in the PHY PTP driver that could absorb the new delay.
> 
> There is also no gating here: no MTU or jumbo condition, no device tree
> property and no ethtool knob, and the bit is re-armed on every
> config_init() and via bcm54xx_resume().  tg3 sets the same hardware bit
> only when tg3_flag(tp, JUMBO_CAPABLE) is set.
> 
> Would it make sense to gate the FIFO elasticity bit on an actual
> jumbo/large-MTU requirement, or to account for the extra delay in the 
> PTP
> path?

Regarding mtu guard:
tg3 gates on JUMBO_CAPABLE, a device capability rather than the 
configured MTU.

Also phylib does not have a MTU hook without any further changes. 
config_init()
runs on attach and resume, not on an MTU change. bcm7xxx.c enables it 
unconditionally
for the very same reason.

Regarding PTP compensation:
egress timestamping happens at the MDI, so the transmit FIFO sits ahead 
of the
capture point and its 16 ns does not end up in the timestamp. So AFAIU 
nothing
to compensate here.

> 
>>  	/* Acknowledge any left over interrupt and charge the device for
>>  	 * wake-up.
>>  	 */
> 
> Also, the changelog says the elasticity bit raises the transmit limit
> "from 4.5 KB to 9 KB", while the in-tree comment on the same register
> write in bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() says 4.5KB to 10KB.  Which figure is
> intended, and could the two be reconciled?

The datasheet gives 4.5 KB to 9 KB for the elasticity bit alone and 10 
KB
for copper mode with both bits set. The existing comment in
bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() attributes the 10 KB to that one bit.

I can send a separate patch for the existing comment if wanted?

Thanks,
Nicolai

Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: broadcom: enable jumbo frames on BCM54xx

[Florian Fainelli]

On 9/14/26 02:47, Nicolai Buchwitz wrote:
> Jumbo packets need two bits that default to off, extended packet length in
> the auxiliary control register and PCS transmit FIFO elasticity in the
> extended control register. The latter raises the transmit limit from 4.5
> KB to 9 KB at the cost of 16 ns of 1000BASE-T transmit latency, and the
> two together take copper mode to 10 KB.
> 
> Without them such frames are lost on a 100M link while the same frames
> pass at 1G. On a Raspberry Pi CM5, which uses a BCM54210PE, 9142 byte
> frames at 100M are lost 20 out of 20 with the MAC counting every one
> as transmitted. The same frames over the same path at 1G arrive intact.
> 
> Set both, which bcm_phy_enable_jumbo() already does for bcm7xxx. The
> frames then arrive and the payloads check out byte for byte.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolai Buchwitz <nb@tipi-net.de>

Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
-- 
Florian