Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Thu, 26 Oct 2023 22:06:40 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com,
        rdunlap@infradead.org, horms@kernel.org, casper.casan@gmail.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Horatiu.Vultur@microchip.com, Woojung.Huh@microchip.com,
        Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        Thorsten.Kummermehr@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: ethernet: oa_tc6: implement OA TC6
 configuration function
Message-ID: <7b3179e2-ac53-497e-94c8-ac364f5b47c6@lunn.ch>
References: <20231023154649.45931-1-Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com>
 <20231023154649.45931-4-Parthiban.Veerasooran@microchip.com>
 <423e0b42-a75e-4104-b445-7d9ff0991acf@lunn.ch>
 <97872e83-1490-4f1a-81ff-3f7692571dd1@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <97872e83-1490-4f1a-81ff-3f7692571dd1@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk

> >> -struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi, bool prote)
> >> +struct oa_tc6 *oa_tc6_init(struct spi_device *spi)
> > 
> > Was there a reason to have prote initially, and then remove it here?
> The reason is, control communication uses "protect". But in the first 
> patch there was no dt used. Later in this patch, dt used for all the 
> configuration parameters and this also part of that. That's why removed 
> and moved this to dt configuration.
> 
> What's your opinion? shall I keep as it is like this? or remove the 
> protect in the first two patches and introduce in this patch?

It will actually depend on what goes into the DT binding. If using
protections costs very little, i would just hard code it on. Maybe you
can run some iperf tests and see if it makes a measurable difference.

How fast an SPI bus are you using on your development board? If you
have a 50Mbps SPI bus, it does not even matter, since the media
bandwidth is just 10Mbps.

    Andrew