On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 1:41 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Andew, Thanks a lot for the review! > > > I agree that we need to support disabling rx-copybreak. > > > What about 0 ~ 64 means to disable rx-copybreak? > > > Or should only 0 be allowed to disable rx-copybreak? > > > > > > > I think a single value of 0 that means disable RX copybreak is more > > clear and intuitive. Also, I think we can allow 64 to be a valid > > value. > > > > So, 0 means to disable. 1 to 63 are -EINVAL and 64 to 1024 are valid. Thanks. > > Please spend a little time and see what other drivers do. Ideally we > want one consistent behaviour for all drivers that allow copybreak to > be disabled. There is no specific disable value in other drivers. But some other drivers have min/max rx-copybreak value. If rx-copybreak is low enough, it will not be worked. So, min value has been working as a disable value actually. I think Andrew's point makes sense. So I would like to change min value from 65 to 64, not add a disable value. Thanks a lot! Taehee Yoo > > Andrew
