[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d3964902-ac02-4fac-a0e8-f820fe56eed1@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 11:00:11 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>, "David S. Miller"
<davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Lars Povlsen
<lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
<horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, <jensemil.schulzostergaard@...rochip.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
<horms@...nel.org>, <justinstitt@...gle.com>, <gal@...dia.com>,
<aakash.r.menon@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/15] net: sparx5: ops out chip port to device
index/bit functions
On 10/1/2024 6:50 AM, Daniel Machon wrote:
> The chip port device index and mode bit can be obtained using the port
> number. However the mapping of port number to chip device index and
> mode bit differs on Sparx5 and lan969x. Therefore ops out the function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
> Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c | 2 ++
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.h | 2 ++
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_port.c | 4 +++-
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_port.h | 7 ++++++-
> 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c
> index 8b1033c49cfe..8617fc3983cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_main.c
> @@ -982,6 +982,8 @@ static const struct sparx5_ops sparx5_ops = {
> .is_port_5g = &sparx5_port_is_5g,
> .is_port_10g = &sparx5_port_is_10g,
> .is_port_25g = &sparx5_port_is_25g,
> + .get_port_dev_index = &sparx5_port_dev_mapping,
> + .get_port_dev_bit = &sparx5_port_dev_mapping,
So for sparx5, these are identical operations, but for lan969x these
will be different? Ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists