Re: [PATCH v2 RFC net-next 04/18] net: mvpp2: add PPv23 version definition

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 01:43:53PM +0200, stefanc@marvell.com wrote:
> From: Stefan Chulski <stefanc@marvell.com>
> 
> This patch add PPv23 version definition.
> PPv23 is new packet processor in CP115.
> Everything that supported by PPv22, also supported by PPv23.
> No functional changes in this stage.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Chulski <stefanc@marvell.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h      | 24 ++++++++++++--------
>  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2_main.c | 17 +++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
> index aec9179..89b3ede 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvpp2/mvpp2.h
> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@
>  /* Top Registers */
>  #define MVPP2_MH_REG(port)			(0x5040 + 4 * (port))
>  #define MVPP2_DSA_EXTENDED			BIT(5)
> +#define MVPP2_VER_ID_REG			0x50b0
> +#define MVPP2_VER_PP22				0x10
> +#define MVPP2_VER_PP23				0x11

Looking at the Armada 8040 docs, it seems this register exists on
PPv2.1 as well, and holds the value zero there.

I wonder whether we should instead read it's value directly into
hw_version, and test against these values, rather than inventing our
own verison enum.

I've also been wondering whether your != MVPP21 comparisons should
instead be >= MVPP22.

Any thoughts?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!