| Message ID | 20191007154306.95827-5-antonio.borneo@st.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: stmmac: add flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a | expand |
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and > 5.00a [2]. > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> Applied to net-next.
Hello Jakub, On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: >> All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback >> dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and >> 5.00a [2]. >> >> Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. >> >> Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. >> >> [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 >> [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 >> >> Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> > > Applied to net-next. This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the change for the correct variant. Cheers, Ahmad
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Jakub, > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and > > > 5.00a [2]. > > > > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. > > > > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. > > > > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> > > > > Applied to net-next. > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the > change for the correct variant. Agree, the patch get applied to the wrong place! Antonio > > Cheers, > Ahmad > >
To += Jakub's new address On 24.11.20 15:15, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Jakub, > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: >>> All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback >>> dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and >>> 5.00a [2]. >>> >>> Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. >>> >>> Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. >>> >>> [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 >>> [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> >> >> Applied to net-next. > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the > change for the correct variant. > > Cheers, > Ahmad > >
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote: > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback > > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and > > > > 5.00a [2]. > > > > > > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. > > > > > > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. > > > > > > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 > > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> > > > > > > Applied to net-next. > > > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. > > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: > > > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { > > > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add > > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: > > > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { > > > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's > > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the > > change for the correct variant. > > Agree, > the patch get applied to the wrong place! :-o This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it happen working on "current" branches. Sorry about that! Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway..
On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 10:20 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback > > > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and > > > > > 5.00a [2]. > > > > > > > > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. > > > > > > > > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. > > > > > > > > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 > > > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> > > > > > > > > Applied to net-next. > > > > > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. > > > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: > > > > > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { > > > > > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add > > > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: > > > > > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { > > > > > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's > > > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the > > > change for the correct variant. > > > > Agree, > > the patch get applied to the wrong place! > > :-o > > This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it > happen working on "current" branches. > > Sorry about that! > > Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if > you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway.. You mean sending two patches one for revert and one to re-apply the code? Or a single patch for the fix? Antonio
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:27:03 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote: > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 10:20 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote: > > > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > > > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote: > > > > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback > > > > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and > > > > > > 5.00a [2]. > > > > > > > > > > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 > > > > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> > > > > > > > > > > Applied to net-next. > > > > > > > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location. > > > > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line: > > > > > > > > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { > > > > > > > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add > > > > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead: > > > > > > > > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = { > > > > > > > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's > > > > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the > > > > change for the correct variant. > > > > > > Agree, > > > the patch get applied to the wrong place! > > > > :-o > > > > This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it > > happen working on "current" branches. > > > > Sorry about that! > > > > Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if > > you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway.. > > You mean sending two patches one for revert and one to re-apply the code? > Or a single patch for the fix? Either way is fine by me. If I was doing it - I'd probably send just one patch, but if you prefer to revert first - nothing wrong with that.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c index 2cb9c53f93b8..3006047213ea 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = { .pcs_get_adv_lp = dwmac4_get_adv_lp, .debug = dwmac4_debug, .set_filter = dwmac4_set_filter, + .flex_pps_config = dwmac5_flex_pps_config, .set_mac_loopback = dwmac4_set_mac_loopback, .update_vlan_hash = dwmac4_update_vlan_hash, .sarc_configure = dwmac4_sarc_configure,
All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and 5.00a [2]. Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too. Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a. [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014 [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017 Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@st.com> --- drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_core.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)