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;
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:46:36 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
To:     Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>
Cc:     Po Liu <po.liu@nxp.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "vinicius.gomes@intel.com" <vinicius.gomes@intel.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@nxp.com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@nxp.com>,
        Roy Zang <roy.zang@nxp.com>, Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@nxp.com>,
        Jerry Huang <jerry.huang@nxp.com>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [net-next, 1/2] enetc: Configure the Time-Aware
 Scheduler via tc-taprio offload
Message-ID: <20191112134635.qxcyf4bzyiwazdmn@netronome.com>
References: <20191111042715.13444-1-Po.Liu@nxp.com>
 <20191112094128.mbfil74gfdnkxigh@netronome.com>
 <VE1PR04MB6496CE5A0DA25D7AF9FD666492770@VE1PR04MB6496.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <VI1PR04MB4880B514857A147B2634B27896770@VI1PR04MB4880.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR04MB4880B514857A147B2634B27896770@VI1PR04MB4880.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:54:29AM +0000, Claudiu Manoil wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Po Liu <po.liu@nxp.com>
> [...]
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>
> [...]
> >> > +/* class 5, command 0 */
> >> > +struct tgs_gcl_conf {
> >> > +     u8      atc;    /* init gate value */
> >> > +     u8      res[7];
> >> > +     union {
> >> > +             struct {
> >> > +                     u8      res1[4];
> >> > +                     __le16  acl_len;
> >>
> >> Given that u* types are used in this structure I think le16 would be more
> >> appropriate than __le16.
> >
> >Here keep the same code style of this .h file. I think it is better to have
> >another patch to fix them all. Do you agree?
> >
> 
> I don't see why "le16" would be more appropriate than "__le16" in this context.
> The "__leXX" types are widely used in kernel drivers and not only, to annotate the
> endianess of the hardware.  These are generic types defined din "include/uapi/linux/types.h".
> Whereas "leXX" are defined in "fs/ntfs/types.h", and there's no usage of these types
> in other h/w device drivers (I didn't find any).  Am I missing anything?

My point is a cosmetic one:
I think that __u8 goes with __le16, while u8 goes with le16.