[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240510122829.GV2347895@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 13:28:29 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
Arun Ramadoss <arun.ramadoss@...rochip.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Søren Andersen <san@...v.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/3] net: dsa: microchip: dcb: rename IPV to
IPM
On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 07:38:26AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> IPV is added and used term in 802.1Qci PSFP and merged into 802.1Q (from
> 802.1Q-2018) for another functions.
>
> Even it does similar operation holding temporal priority value
> internally (as it is named), because KSZ datasheet doesn't use the term
> of IPV (Internal Priority Value) and avoiding any confusion later when
> PSFP is in the Linux world, it is better to rename IPV to IPM (Internal
> Priority Mapping).
>
> In addition, LAN937x documentation already use IPV for 802.1Qci PSFP
> related functionality.
>
> Suggested-by: Woojung Huh <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> Reviewed-by: Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists