> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@xxxxxx>
> Sent: 04 October 2021 19:54
> To: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sergei Shtylyov
> <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxx>; 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 9:47 PM, Biju Das 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.
>
> We do -- we pass the TCCR mask to ravb_wait().
Agreed. will use "tccr_mask" in next RFC version.
>
> [...]
>
> > Regards,
> > Biju
>
> MBR, Sergey
