[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9848F2DB572E5649BA045B288BE08FBE01505F40@039-SN2MPN1-023.039d.mgd.msft.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 01:41:08 +0000
From: Duan Fugang-B38611 <B38611@...escale.com>
To: Jim Baxter <jim_baxter@...tor.com>
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Li Frank-B20596 <B20596@...escale.com>,
Estevam Fabio-R49496 <r49496@...escale.com>,
Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: fec: Add VLAN receive HW support.
On 06/26/13 19:45, Jim Baxter wrote:
> On 26/06/13 12:18, Duan Fugang-B38611 wrote:
> > On 06/26/13 18:09, Jim Baxter wrote:
> >>
> >>> In addition,
> >>> 1. enet IP support hw VLAN detect such as imx28-fec, imx6q-fec and mvf600-fec, so you can add the "BD_ENET_RX_VLAN " to those platform driver_data.
> >> I have only tested it on the i.MX6, if someone wants to check it on
> >> the
> >> imx28 later they can add it to that option.
> >
> >>> 2. Enable the VLAN tag extraction with "NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX" feature in .ndo_fix_features, which is configured by user.
> >> What do you mean by this, I am only enabling the VLAN code if
> >> (ndev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX) is set. I am pretty sure
> >> this is set by
> >
> > You can enable the feature like below, which is reasonable.
> > .ndo_fix_features = fec_enet_fix_features
> >
> > static netdev_features_t fec_enet_fix_features (struct net_device *dev,
> > netdev_features_t features)
> > {
> > struct fec_enet_private *fep = netdev_priv(dev);
> > const struct platform_device_id *id_entry =
> > platform_get_device_id(fep->pdev);
> >
> > if (id_entry->driver_data & FEC_QUIRK_HAS_VLAN)
> > features |= NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX;
> >
> > return features;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Andy
> >
> >
>
> I currently set the features in fec_enet_init() along with setting hw_features, is fec_enet_fix_features() a more correct design for driver implementation point?
Yes, I think it is more reasonable.
Can you hold on the patch to hear others' idea.
Thanks,
Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists