[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b3179e2-ac53-497e-94c8-ac364f5b47c6@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 22:06:40 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
corbet@....net, Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com,
rdunlap@...radead.org, horms@...nel.org, casper.casan@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com, Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com,
Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6
configuration function
> >> -struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi, bool prote)
> >> +struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi)
> >
> > Was there a reason to have prote initially, and then remove it here?
> The reason is, control communication uses "protect". But in the first
> patch there was no dt used. Later in this patch, dt used for all the
> configuration parameters and this also part of that. That's why removed
> and moved this to dt configuration.
>
> What's your opinion? shall I keep as it is like this? or remove the
> protect in the first two patches and introduce in this patch?
It will actually depend on what goes into the DT binding. If using
protections costs very little, i would just hard code it on. Maybe you
can run some iperf tests and see if it makes a measurable difference.
How fast an SPI bus are you using on your development board? If you
have a 50Mbps SPI bus, it does not even matter, since the media
bandwidth is just 10Mbps.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists