From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:39:35 +0100
Subject: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH 3/4] igb: add support for extended
 PHC gettime
In-Reply-To: <20181031022916.nuvbjegnn6bsqxss@localhost>
References: <20181026162742.631-1-mlichvar@redhat.com>
 <20181026162742.631-4-mlichvar@redhat.com>
 <20181031022916.nuvbjegnn6bsqxss@localhost>
Message-ID: <20181031093935.GL31668@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org
List-ID: <intel-wired-lan.osuosl.org>

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 07:29:16PM -0700, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 06:27:41PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > +static int igb_ptp_gettimex(struct ptp_clock_info *ptp,
> > +			    struct ptp_system_timestamp *sts)
> > +{
> > +	struct igb_adapter *igb = container_of(ptp, struct igb_adapter,
> > +					       ptp_caps);
> > +	struct e1000_hw *hw = &igb->hw;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> > +	u32 lo, hi;
> > +	u64 ns;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&igb->tmreg_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +	/* 82576 doesn't have SYSTIMR */
> > +	if (igb->hw.mac.type == e1000_82576) {
> 
> Instead of if/then/else, can't you follow the pattern of providing
> different function flavors ...

I can. I was just trying to minimize the amount of triplicated code.
In the next version I'll add a patch to deprecate the old gettime
functions, as Jacob suggested, and replace them with the extended
versions, so the amount of code will not change that much.

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar