Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1542967157-8053-1-git-send-email-harini.katakam@xilinx.com> <5b550305-ff96-fdf6-883e-b6ae69ad3124@ni.com>
In-Reply-To: <5b550305-ff96-fdf6-883e-b6ae69ad3124@ni.com>
From:   Harini Katakam <harinik@xilinx.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:43:01 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFcVECL=6J4EPetP1g+f5KNxg6V=RZrvbCRL9fOHJpVczE0Rtg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] net: macb: Apply RXUBR workaround only to versions
 with errata
To:     Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@ni.com>
Cc:     Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@xilinx.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Brandon,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:39 AM Brandon Streiff <brandon.streiff@ni.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/2018 3:59 AM, Harini Katakam wrote:
> > +/* Errata mask bits */
> > +#define MACB_ERRATA_RXLOCKUP                 0x00000001
> > +
> >  /* LSO settings */
> >  #define MACB_LSO_UFO_ENABLE                  0x01
> >  #define MACB_LSO_TSO_ENABLE                  0x02
> > @@ -1085,6 +1088,7 @@ struct macb_config {
> >                           struct clk **rx_clk);
> >       int     (*init)(struct platform_device *pdev);
> >       int     jumbo_max_len;
> > +     u32     errata;
> >  };
> >
> >  struct tsu_incr {
> > @@ -1214,6 +1218,8 @@ struct macb {
> >
> >       int     rx_bd_rd_prefetch;
> >       int     tx_bd_rd_prefetch;
> > +
> > +     u32 errata;
> >  };
>
> Hi Harini,
>
> Could this be made into simpler by instead adding a caps bit, named
> (perhaps) MACB_CAPS_BUGGY_RXUBR or MACB_CAPS_NEEDS_RXUBR_RESETS or
> something?
>
> That would save needing to add a new u32 field into the macb_config and
> macb structs (both of which already have this caps field).

Thanks for the review. Yes, the caps field already has all that.
The only reason I separated it was that CAPS generally referred to a feature and
this is a workaround for an errata. There's no functional need, of course and
I'm ok to integrate it as well.

Regards,
Harini