[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200818104305.GB1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 11:43:05 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Samuel Zou <zou_wei@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Use generic helper function
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:32:45PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> -static int is_pdelay_resp(u8 *msgtype)
> +static int is_pdelay_resp(const struct ptp_header *hdr)
> {
> - return (*msgtype & 0xf) == 3;
> + return (hdr->tsmt & 0xf) == 3;
Forgive my ignorance about PTPv1, but does PTPv1 have these as well?
Is there a reason not to use the helper introduced in patch 2 here?
Should we have definitions for the message types?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists