On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 01:07:34PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_EN BIT(8)
-#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1_900_NS 1900
+#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1_900_PS 1900
This could be down to interpretation.
#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1.900_NS 1900
would be technically correct, but not valid for cpp(1). So the . is
replaced with a _ .
#define YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1900_PS 1900
would also be correct, but that is not what you have in your patch,
you leave the _ in place.
Alright, I didn't realize that 1_950 represents 1.950;
I thought the underscores were used for code neatness,
making numbers like 900 and 1050 the same length, for example:
#define YT8521_RC1R_RGMII_0_900_PS
#define YT8521_RC1R_RGMII_1_050_PS
In that case, is my patch still necessary?
I think it is unnecessary.
If you want, you could add a comment which explains that the _ should
be read as a . However, this does appear elsewhere in Linux, it is
one of those things you learn with time.
Hang on.
Is the "1900" 1.9ns or 1.9ps ?
If YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1_900_NS means 1.9ns, and the value is in ps,
then surely if it's being renamed to _PS, then it _must_ become
YT8521_CCR_RXC_DLY_1900_NS, because 1.900ps is wrong?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!