[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241021135000.ygele6x64xvfzntl@skbuf>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 16:50:00 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/4] net: dsa: Add Airoha AN8855 support
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:39:26PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 04:36:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 03:01:55PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > It's conceptually similar to mediatek switch but register and bits
> > > are different.
> >
> > Is it impractical to use struct regmap_field to abstract those
> > differences away and reuse the mt7530 driver's control flow? What is the
> > relationship between the Airoha and Mediatek IP anyway? The mt7530
> > maintainers should also be consulted w.r.t. whether code sharing is in
> > the common interest (I copied them).
>
> Some logic are similar for ATU or VLAN handling but then they added bits
> in the middle of the register and moved some in other place.
>
> Happy of being contradicted but from what I checked adapting the mtk
> code would introduce lots of condition and wrapper and I feel it would
> be actually worse than keeping the 2 codebase alone.
>
> Would love some help by mt7530 to catch some very common case.
As long as the control flow is reasonably similar, the REG_FIELD() macro
is able to deal with register fields which have moved from one place to
another between hardware variants.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists