Hi Sergei,
> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 12/18] ravb: Add timestamp to struct ravb_hw_info
>
> On 9/26/21 11:45 PM, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 12/18] ravb: Add timestamp to struct
> >>> ravb_hw_info
> >>>
> >>> On 9/23/21 5:08 PM, Biju Das wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> R-Car AVB-DMAC supports timestamp feature.
> >>>> Add a timestamp hw feature bit to struct ravb_hw_info to add this
> >>>> feature only for R-Car.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h | 2 +
> >>>> drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c | 68
> >>>> +++++++++++++++---------
> >>>> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >>>> index ab4909244276..2505de5d4a28 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >>>> @@ -1034,6 +1034,7 @@ struct ravb_hw_info {
> >>>> unsigned mii_rgmii_selection:1; /* E-MAC supports
> mii/rgmii
> >>> selection */
> >>>> unsigned half_duplex:1; /* E-MAC supports half duplex
> mode */
> >>>> unsigned rx_2k_buffers:1; /* AVB-DMAC has Max 2K buf size
> on RX
> >>> */
> >>>> + unsigned timestamp:1; /* AVB-DMAC has timestamp */
> >>>
> >>> Isn't this a matter of the gPTP support as well, i.e. no separate
> >>> flag needed?
> >>
> >> Agreed. Previously it is suggested to use timestamp. I will change it
> to as part of gPTP support cases.
> >
> > TIA. :-)
> >
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>> @@ -1089,6 +1090,7 @@ struct ravb_private {
> >>>> unsigned int num_tx_desc; /* TX descriptors per packet */
> >>>>
> >>>> int duplex;
> >>>> + struct ravb_rx_desc *rgeth_rx_ring[NUM_RX_QUEUE];
> >>>
> >>> Strange place to declare this...
> >>
> >> Agreed. This has to be on later patch. Will move it.
> >
> > I only meant that these fields should go together with rx_ring[].
> > Apparently
>
> Sorry, this field.
It is a mistake from my side which ended up this variable in this patch.
Function pointers are introduced to avoid more checks and only rx functions pf RZ/G2L are using
this variable.
It will be clear you to once you finish reviewing the remaining patches(patch 13 - patch 18).
Regards,
Biju
Regards,
Biju
>
> > we have a case of wrong patch ordering here (as this patch needs this
> field declared)...
> [...]
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Biju
>
> MBR, Sergey
