[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250625170050.GJ1562@horms.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 18:00:50 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Vlad URSU <vlad@...u.me>
Cc: Jacek Kowalski <jacek@...ekk.info>,
Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] e1000e: ignore factory-default checksum value on
TGP platform
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 05:06:44PM +0300, Vlad URSU wrote:
> On 25.06.2025 16:05, Jacek Kowalski wrote:
> > > > > > +#define NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT 0xFFFF
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps it is too long, but I liked Vlad's suggestion of naming this
> > > > > NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT.
> >
> > So the proposals are:
> >
> > 1. NVM_CHECKSUM_WORD_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> > 2. NVM_CHECKSUM_FACTORY_DEFAULT
> > 3. NVM_CHECKSUM_INVALID
> > 4. NVM_CHECKSUM_MISSING
> > 5. NVM_CHECKSUM_EMPTY
> > 6. NVM_NO_CHECKSUM
> >
> > Any other contenders?
> >
>
> For reference, I called it "CHECKSUM_WORD" in my proposal because that's
> what it's refered to as in the intel documentation (section 10.3.2.2 - http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/ethernet-connection-i219-datasheet.pdf)
>
FWIIW, I'd vote for 1.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists