Hi Sergei,
Thanks for the review.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
> Sent: 23 September 2021 20:00
> To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller
> <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>; Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxx>;
> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>; Adam Ford
> <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>; Yoshihiro Shimoda
> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-renesas-
> soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Biju
> Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 05/18] ravb: Exclude gPTP feature support for
> RZ/G2L
>
> On 9/23/21 5:08 PM, Biju Das wrote:
>
> > R-Car supports gPTP feature whereas RZ/G2L does not support it.
> > This patch excludes gtp feature support for RZ/G2L by enabling no_gptp
> > feature bit.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c | 46
> > ++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> > index d38fc33a8e93..8663d83507a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c
> [...]
> > @@ -953,7 +954,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ravb_interrupt(int irq, void
> *dev_id)
> > }
> >
> > /* gPTP interrupt status summary */
> > - if (iss & ISS_CGIS) {
>
> Isn't this bit always 0 on RZ/G2L?
This CGIM bit(BIT13) which is present on R-Car Gen3 is not present in RZ/G2L. As per the HW manual
BIT13 is reserved bit and read is always 0.
>
> > + if (!info->no_gptp && (iss & ISS_CGIS)) {
> > ravb_ptp_interrupt(ndev);
> > result = IRQ_HANDLED;
> > }
> > @@ -1378,6 +1379,7 @@ static int ravb_get_ts_info(struct net_device
> *ndev,
> > struct ethtool_ts_info *info)
> > {
> > struct ravb_private *priv = netdev_priv(ndev);
> > + const struct ravb_hw_info *hw_info = priv->info;
> >
> > info->so_timestamping =
> > SOF_TIMESTAMPING_TX_SOFTWARE |
> > @@ -1391,7 +1393,8 @@ static int ravb_get_ts_info(struct net_device
> *ndev,
> > (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_NONE) |
> > (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_PTP_V2_L2_EVENT) |
> > (1 << HWTSTAMP_FILTER_ALL);
> > - info->phc_index = ptp_clock_index(priv->ptp.clock);
> > + if (!hw_info->no_gptp)
> > + info->phc_index = ptp_clock_index(priv->ptp.clock);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -2116,6 +2119,7 @@ static const struct ravb_hw_info rgeth_hw_info = {
> > .emac_init = ravb_rgeth_emac_init,
> > .aligned_tx = 1,
> > .tx_counters = 1,
> > + .no_gptp = 1,
>
> Mhm, I definitely don't like the way you "extend" the GbEthernet info
> structure. All the applicable flags should be set in the last patch of the
> series, not amidst of it.
According to me, It is clearer with smaller patches like, what we have done with previous 2 patch sets for factorisation.
Please correct me, if any one have different opinion.
Regards,
Biju
>
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergey
