[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2610bc26-44e6-48a3-87c6-acfa30f60dad@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 13:07:34 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yi Cong <cong.yi@...ux.dev>
Cc: Frank.Sae@...or-comm.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
hkallweit1@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, yicong@...inos.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: motorcomm: Fix the issue in the code regarding
the incorrect use of time units
> > > #define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_EN BIT(8)
> > > -#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1_900_NS 1900
> > > +#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1_900_PS 1900
> >
> > This could be down to interpretation.
> >
> > #define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1.900_NS 1900
> >
> > would be technically correct, but not valid for cpp(1). So the . is
> > replaced with a _ .
> >
> > #define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1900_PS 1900
> >
> > would also be correct, but that is not what you have in your patch,
> > you leave the _ in place.
>
> Alright, I didn't realize that 1_950 represents 1.950;
> I thought the underscores were used for code neatness,
> making numbers like 900 and 1050 the same length, for example:
> #define YT8521_RC1R_RGMII_0_900_PS
> #define YT8521_RC1R_RGMII_1_050_PS
>
> In that case, is my patch still necessary?
I think it is unnecessary.
If you want, you could add a comment which explains that the _ should
be read as a . However, this does appear elsewhere in Linux, it is
one of those things you learn with time.
Andrew
---
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists