[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1978350d-b67b-d538-5985-c204c6b549a6@seco.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 11:08:29 -0400
From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@...o.com>
To: Parshuram Raju Thombare <pthombar@...ence.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Milind Parab <mparab@...ence.com>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5] net: macb: Fix several edge cases in validate
On 11/3/21 6:14 AM, Parshuram Raju Thombare wrote:
> Hi Sean,
>
> Thanks for this improvement.
>
>>+ if (!macb_is_gem(bp) ||
>>+ (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE)) {
>>+ have_1g = true;
>>+ if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_PCS)
>>+ have_sgmii = true;
>>+ if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED)
>>+ have_10g = true;
>
> As I understand, MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE is used as a quirk in configs
> to prevent giga bit operation support, Nicolas should have more information about this.
>
> macb_is_gem() tells whether giga bit operations is supported by HW, MACB_CAPS_PCS indicate
> whether PCS is included in the design (needed for SGMII and 10G operation), MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED
> indicate if design supports 10G operation.
>
> I believe this should be
>
>>+ if (macb_is_gem(bp) &&
>>+ (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_GIGABIT_MODE_AVAILABLE)) {
>>+ have_1g = true;
>>+ if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_PCS)
>>+ have_sgmii = true;
>>+ if (bp->caps & MACB_CAPS_HIGH_SPEED)
>>+ have_10g = true;
Ah, you are correct. It seems I forgot to invert this condition.
--Sean
Powered by blists - more mailing lists