Hi Geert, Thanks for the feedback. > -----Original Message----- > From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 17 March 2025 14:13 > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/16] can: rcar_canfd: Add mask table to struct rcar_canfd_hw_info > > Hi Biju, > > On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 13:37, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > R-Car Gen3 and Gen4 have some differences in the mask bits. Add a mask > > table to handle these differences. > > > > Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > v4->v5: > > * Improved commit description by replacing has->have. > > * Collected tag. > > * Dropped RCANFD_EEF_MASK and RCANFD_RNC_MASK as it is taken > > care by gpriv->channels_mask and info->num_supported_rules. > > Thanks for the update! > > All mask values are just the maximum values of various parameters. > Hence they could be replaced by the latter, like you already did for the RNC mask. But this will increase memory size, right? Currently we have rcar-gen3 and gen4 tables 2 tables used by 4 hardware info variants. If we drop tables and use variable with max values like RNC MASK, then this will be like 4 tables for 4 hardware info variants, right? Please correct me if my understanding is wrong. Cheers, Biju
