[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd0a6cd5-91e5-4e13-8025-d6c88bdab5a2@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 02:46:03 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Parthiban Veerasooran <Parthiban.Veerasooran@...rochip.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
corbet@....net, steen.hegelund@...rochip.com, rdunlap@...radead.org,
horms@...nel.org, casper.casan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com,
Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Thorsten.Kummermehr@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/6] net: ethernet: implement OA TC6
configuration function
> +int oa_tc6_configure(struct oa_tc6 *tc6, u8 cps, bool ctrl_prot, bool tx_cut_thr,
> + bool rx_cut_thr)
> +{
> + u32 regval;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Read and configure the IMASK0 register for unmasking the interrupts */
> + ret = oa_tc6_read_register(tc6, OA_TC6_IMASK0, ®val, 1);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + regval &= TXPEM & TXBOEM & TXBUEM & RXBOEM & LOFEM & HDREM;
> + ret = oa_tc6_write_register(tc6, OA_TC6_IMASK0, ®val, 1);
It is not so obvious what this 1 means. Maybe change to regval[1], and
user ARRAY_SIZE(). What also does not help is the function name,
oa_tc6_write_register(). Singular. So it appears to write one register,
not multiple registers. It might even make sense to make
oa_tc6_write_register() truly access a single register, and add
oa_tc6_write_registers() for multiple registers.
> +/* Unmasking interrupt fields in IMASK0 */
> +#define HDREM ~BIT(5) /* Header Error Mask */
> +#define LOFEM ~BIT(4) /* Loss of Framing Error Mask */
> +#define RXBOEM ~BIT(3) /* Rx Buffer Overflow Error Mask */
> +#define TXBUEM ~BIT(2) /* Tx Buffer Underflow Error Mask */
> +#define TXBOEM ~BIT(1) /* Tx Buffer Overflow Error Mask */
> +#define TXPEM ~BIT(0) /* Tx Protocol Error Mask */
Using ~BIT(X) is very usual. I would not do this, Principle of Least
Surprise.
> struct oa_tc6 {
> - struct spi_device *spi;
> - bool ctrl_prot;
> + struct completion rst_complete;
> struct task_struct *tc6_task;
> wait_queue_head_t tc6_wq;
> + struct spi_device *spi;
> + bool tx_cut_thr;
> + bool rx_cut_thr;
> + bool ctrl_prot;
> bool int_flag;
> - struct completion rst_complete;
> + u8 cps;
> };
Please try not to move stuff around. It makes the diff bigger than it
should be.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists