Re: [PATCH v2 RFC net-next 04/18] net: mvpp2: add PPv23 version definition
From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Date: 2021-01-24 13:18:59
Also in:
lkml
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 01:43:53PM +0200, stefanc@marvell.com wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Stefan Chulski <redacted> 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 <redacted> --- 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!