Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] net: phy: mscc: rename enum rgmii_rx_clock_delay to rgmii_clock_delay

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 13:05, Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Quoting Vladimir Oltean (2020-03-20 11:38:05)
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 12:09, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:16:46PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing RX-specific about these clock skew values. So remove
> > > > "RX" from the name in preparation for the next patch where TX delays are
> > > > also going to be configured.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc.h      | 18 +++++++++---------
> > > >  drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc_main.c |  2 +-
> > > >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc.h b/drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc.h
> > > > index 29ccb2c9c095..56feb14838f3 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/mscc/mscc.h
> > > > @@ -12,15 +12,15 @@
> > > >  #include "mscc_macsec.h"
> > > >  #endif
> > > >
> > > > -enum rgmii_rx_clock_delay {
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_0_2_NS = 0,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_0_8_NS = 1,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_1_1_NS = 2,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_1_7_NS = 3,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_2_0_NS = 4,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_2_3_NS = 5,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_2_6_NS = 6,
> > > > -     RGMII_RX_CLK_DELAY_3_4_NS = 7
> > > > +enum rgmii_clock_delay {
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_0_2_NS = 0,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_0_8_NS = 1,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_1_1_NS = 2,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_1_7_NS = 3,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_2_0_NS = 4,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_2_3_NS = 5,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_2_6_NS = 6,
> > > > +     RGMII_CLK_DELAY_3_4_NS = 7
> > > >  };
> > >
> > > Can this be shared?
> > >
> > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg638747.html
> > >
> > > Looks to be the same values?
> > >
> > > Can some of the implementation be consolidated?
>
> > - That patch is writing to MSCC_PHY_RGMII_SETTINGS (defined to 18).
> > This one is writing to MSCC_PHY_RGMII_CNTL (defined to 20). And since
> > I have no documentation to understand why, I'm back to square 1.
>
> These are two different registers, using similar values. I guess the
> register was moved around as those PHYs are from the same family; but
> I'm not sure if it's correct to consolidate it as we do not know for
> sure. (Practically speaking the same values are used, so why not).
>
> Thanks,
> Antoine
>
> --
> Antoine Ténart, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com

And to add to that: without documentation, I don't really know what
I'm consolidating.

 -Vladimir