From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mugunthan V N Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: ethernet: cpsw: add support for hardware interface mode config Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:44:20 +0530 Message-ID: <5216FDBC.3010600@ti.com> References: <1377171448-27924-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377171448-27924-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <5216F366.50609@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5216F366.50609@ti.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sekhar Nori Cc: Daniel Mack , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, ujhelyi.m@gmail.com, vaibhav.bedia@ti.com, d-gerlach@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Friday 23 August 2013 11:00 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> @@ -728,6 +736,44 @@ static void _cpsw_adjust_link(struct cpsw_slave *slave, >> > u32 mac_control = 0; >> > u32 slave_port; >> > >> > + if (priv->gmii_sel_reg && of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am33xx")) { > This sounds like the DT version of cpu_is_am335x()! Looks like you need > to introduce a new compatible "ti,am3352-cpsw" to indicate the AM3352 > specific features of the CPSW IP (yeah, control module is not really > part of the IP, but by introducing it in the driver, we are treating it > such anyway. And you can see this register as extension of IP since its > not shared for any other purpose). > I also agree but it should be ti,am3352-cpsw or ti.am33xx-cpsw? Regards Mugunthan V N From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mugunthanvnm@ti.com (Mugunthan V N) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:44:20 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] net: ethernet: cpsw: add support for hardware interface mode config In-Reply-To: <5216F366.50609@ti.com> References: <1377171448-27924-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377171448-27924-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <5216F366.50609@ti.com> Message-ID: <5216FDBC.3010600@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 23 August 2013 11:00 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> @@ -728,6 +736,44 @@ static void _cpsw_adjust_link(struct cpsw_slave *slave, >> > u32 mac_control = 0; >> > u32 slave_port; >> > >> > + if (priv->gmii_sel_reg && of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am33xx")) { > This sounds like the DT version of cpu_is_am335x()! Looks like you need > to introduce a new compatible "ti,am3352-cpsw" to indicate the AM3352 > specific features of the CPSW IP (yeah, control module is not really > part of the IP, but by introducing it in the driver, we are treating it > such anyway. And you can see this register as extension of IP since its > not shared for any other purpose). > I also agree but it should be ti,am3352-cpsw or ti.am33xx-cpsw? Regards Mugunthan V N From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mugunthan V N Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] net: ethernet: cpsw: add support for hardware interface mode config Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:44:20 +0530 Message-ID: <5216FDBC.3010600@ti.com> References: <1377171448-27924-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <1377171448-27924-4-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <5216F366.50609@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Daniel Mack , , , , , , , , To: Sekhar Nori Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:43339 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754513Ab3HWGOt (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 02:14:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5216F366.50609@ti.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 23 August 2013 11:00 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> @@ -728,6 +736,44 @@ static void _cpsw_adjust_link(struct cpsw_slave *slave, >> > u32 mac_control = 0; >> > u32 slave_port; >> > >> > + if (priv->gmii_sel_reg && of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am33xx")) { > This sounds like the DT version of cpu_is_am335x()! Looks like you need > to introduce a new compatible "ti,am3352-cpsw" to indicate the AM3352 > specific features of the CPSW IP (yeah, control module is not really > part of the IP, but by introducing it in the driver, we are treating it > such anyway. And you can see this register as extension of IP since its > not shared for any other purpose). > I also agree but it should be ti,am3352-cpsw or ti.am33xx-cpsw? Regards Mugunthan V N