From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA7ACA9EC6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248E021924 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="feK2ltoB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728227AbfJ3Seo (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:34:44 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:39505 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728251AbfJ3Sen (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 14:34:43 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id v4so2170145pff.6 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XnB8lNefrufIWWk8KH+Vbw0F66lsabahRwrjktnz2AA=; b=feK2ltoB+RwBV/634/lEfiraF4zQfy3npuaeGo3PF8jPiBgkSXUgSrS5QZLegt2ouK 4k9m7ilufUZ4YJKnttJbvVtflH328ItXeIE69z/fqxDfe/dbqekYwCBumF5EMusSgyrE aQLQv2qfTwvILN+2gbgLs42Qd5lhGA/28ZvHiAzk9hPmClnTI2XxfCgERaGhBO60LUC9 B60JdY6tsWRc6CKbQXygHHPTwUAb89fXmGbHb/NQfOFiFTTx2JFQMExa50GMC9Y1u349 20GIf7wrBueUbaPNZBe5rRzb60KrhxqOFitp0kzlUiuTsL4+Ts++oadOP2Rgd0v+sEZ4 3SSw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XnB8lNefrufIWWk8KH+Vbw0F66lsabahRwrjktnz2AA=; b=toSthYaRMbyqJ+5vgvQzAn4f/9P2TQZbaZWjI8pPlRZB0rbGsnoqQCkoUTtD1QxvgJ eTYe22exi6J3geOW4t7II7aizYt1Yu0FOulKOmrG8J3iQ211jM4lsUoKNJ7qlRbwruKa +776kSz8j+TciXTD3bVroMPE4LmCssL90R8Ah/GB0Z41z7a4KFHgKUKJrp8roTtFEI3N cLkRk+RluaYDPeccBdCKfMp/0Dsvv4FnnZHMP0Vq9GljD8Z+tdc5gmeNK5mcQNOsX0z1 PwVYYTLs987HnBC0RDyL6xrxYU+z0nIE5hVr6K+q7Ffh3r5a2FGTfpbl+YZvG0CKOUXr K3KA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXttKAONz1Rk6Hl9SKQOy/nftRUQw6+PRzGihONEtNkoXbnFIlf cFOvHMhw0a3DAtqWc+z20yYWaRjP8OAaYeVZ738= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqylXW1p0VW5b4bbPG+XYwK4/xy/FNWgxoY9UWv5NtvUNhB2Aaso8Ghv/ZzIHFaL7GpnmH99GWYUMQLxCE3dO1o= X-Received: by 2002:a63:c045:: with SMTP id z5mr927985pgi.69.1572460482889; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:34:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191029220503.7553-1-jongk@linux-m68k.org> <28fd507e-580d-97c3-1cb3-2124940f2cae@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Michael Schmitz Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:34:31 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] esp_scsi: Add support for FSC chip To: Kars de Jong Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Finn Thain , "Linux/m68k" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Hi Kars, On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:08 PM Kars de Jong wrote: > > > Um, no, that would break the FAS236. FSC is defined after FAS236. It's > > > import that its values is lower than FAS100A and greater or equal than > > > FAS236. And as I wrote in reply to Finn, I think PCSCSI falls in the > > > same category. You're right - > > You definitely want to add a comment like "all below use the same CONFIG3 > > settings", to avoid nasty surprises for future additions (if any). > > Using feature bits might be even better, but may not be worthwhile, since > > there seems to be only a single "esp->rev > ..." check. > > No, there are several more actually: > * "esp->rev > ESP100A" which basically means "HAS_CONFIG3". > * "esp->rev < ESP236" which basically means "!HAS_FAST_CLOCK". > * "esp->rev >= FAS236" which basically means "HAS_FAST_CLOCK" > * "esp->rev >= FAS100A" which basically means "HAS_OLD_CONFIG3" > > So, perhaps having feature bits is not a bad idea at all... We need a few more feature bits (at least HAS_CONFIG2 to differentiate between ESP100 and ESP100A in esp_get_revision()). This might get hard in terms of test coverage, but I'd raise that as alternative to adding FSC to the list or enum in your RFC to linux-scsi. Cheers, Michael > > Kind regards, > > Kars.