Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] can: add netlink interface for CAN-FD Transmitter Delay Compensation (TDC)

From: Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
To: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-can <linux-can@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
Cc: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] can: add netlink interface for CAN-FD Transmitter Delay Compensation (TDC)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 22:16:45 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMZ6RqLZ+LidnRka1-pX8dkHCaqNs3=bRujsMEs8LXnq0Y_E9Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210224002008.4158-5-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>

On Wed. 24 Feb 2021 at 09:20, Vincent Mailhol
<mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c b/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> index c19eef775ec8..c3f75c09d6c8 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/dev/netlink.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ static const struct nla_policy can_policy[IFLA_CAN_MAX + 1] = {
>         [IFLA_CAN_DATA_BITTIMING] = { .len = sizeof(struct can_bittiming) },
>         [IFLA_CAN_DATA_BITTIMING_CONST] = { .len = sizeof(struct can_bittiming_const) },
>         [IFLA_CAN_TERMINATION] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCV] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCV_MAX_CONST] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCO] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCO_MAX_CONST] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCF] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> +       [IFLA_CAN_TDCF_MAX_CONST] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
>  };

Looking back at my patch, I just realized that the values are not
ordered in a consistent way. Here, I alternate between the TDCx
and the TDCx_CONST...

> (...)

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/can/netlink.h b/include/uapi/linux/can/netlink.h
> index f730d443b918..e69c4b330ae6 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/can/netlink.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/can/netlink.h
> @@ -134,6 +134,12 @@ enum {
>         IFLA_CAN_BITRATE_CONST,
>         IFLA_CAN_DATA_BITRATE_CONST,
>         IFLA_CAN_BITRATE_MAX,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCV,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCO,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCF,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCV_MAX_CONST,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCO_MAX_CONST,
> +       IFLA_CAN_TDCF_MAX_CONST,
>         __IFLA_CAN_MAX
>  };

... and there, all the TDCx and the TDCx_CONST are grouped together.

Marc, because the patches are already in the
linux-can-next/testing, how should I proceed to fix this? Should
I resend the full patch series with the changes or can I just
prepare one patch and ask you to squash it?

Yours sincerely,
Vincent