RE: [PATCH 07/10] ravb: Add tsrq to struct ravb_hw_info

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 04 October 2021 19:37
> To: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>; Biju Das
> <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jakub
> Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>; Sergey Shtylyov
> <s.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>; Andrew Lunn
> <andrew@xxxxxxx>; Yuusuke Ashizuka <ashiduka@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Yoshihiro
> Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> renesas-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Chris Paterson <Chris.Paterson2@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Biju Das <biju.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Prabhakar Mahadev Lad
> <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ravb: Add tsrq to struct ravb_hw_info
> 
> On 10/4/21 9:00 PM, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> 
> [...]
> >    The TCCR bits are called transmit start request (queue 0/1), not
> transmit start request queue 0/1.
> > I think you've read too much value into them for what is just TX queue
> 0/1.
> >
> >> Add a tsrq variable to struct ravb_hw_info to handle this difference.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reviewed-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> RFC->v1:
> >>  * Added tsrq variable instead of multi_tsrq feature bit.
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h      | 1 +
> >>  drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb_main.c | 9 +++++++--
> >>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >> index 9cd3a15743b4..c586070193ef 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/renesas/ravb.h
> >> @@ -997,6 +997,7 @@ struct ravb_hw_info {
> >>  	netdev_features_t net_features;
> >>  	int stats_len;
> >>  	size_t max_rx_len;
> >> +	u32 tsrq;
> >
> >    I'd call it 'tccr_value' instead.
> 
>     Or even better, 'tccr_mask'...

We are not masking anything here right. tccr_value will be ok, as it implies real tccr register value.

Regards,
Biju

> 
> [...]
> 
> MBR, Sergey




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux