Hi Biju,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:26 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 12:27 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > The DMAC and EMAC blocks of Gigabit Ethernet IP found on RZ/G2L SoC
> > > are similar to the R-Car Ethernet AVB IP. With a few changes in the
> > > driver we can support both IPs.
> > >
> > > Currently a runtime decision based on the chip type is used to
> > > distinguish the HW differences between the SoC families.
> > >
> > > The number of TX descriptors for R-Car Gen3 is 1 whereas on R-Car Gen2
> > > and RZ/G2L it is 2. For cases like this it is better to select the
> > > number of TX descriptors by using a structure with a value, rather
> > > than a runtime decision based on the chip type.
> > >
> > > This patch adds the num_tx_desc variable to struct ravb_hw_info and
> > > also replaces the driver data chip type with struct ravb_hw_info by
> > > moving chip type to it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> > > @@ -988,6 +988,11 @@ enum ravb_chip_id {
> > > RCAR_GEN3,
> > > };
> > >
> > > +struct ravb_hw_info {
> > > + enum ravb_chip_id chip_id;
> > > + int num_tx_desc;
> >
> > Why not "unsigned int"? ...
> > This comment applies to a few more subsequent patches.
>
> To avoid signed and unsigned comparison warnings.
>
> >
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > struct ravb_private {
> > > struct net_device *ndev;
> > > struct platform_device *pdev;
> > > @@ -1040,6 +1045,8 @@ struct ravb_private {
> > > unsigned txcidm:1; /* TX Clock Internal Delay Mode
> > */
> > > unsigned rgmii_override:1; /* Deprecated rgmii-*id behavior
> > */
> > > int num_tx_desc; /* TX descriptors per packet */
> >
> > ... oh, here's the original culprit.
>
> Exactly, this the reason.
>
> Do you want me to change this into unsigned int? Please let me know.
Up to you (or the maintainer? ;-)
For new fields (in the other patches), I would use unsigned for all
unsigned values. Signed values have more pitfalls related to
undefined behavior.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
