From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 1/1] drivers: net: cpsw: Add support for new CPSW IP version Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 22:45:23 +0300 Message-ID: <20130731194523.GB900@radagast> References: <1375272746-24446-1-git-send-email-mugunthanvnm@ti.com> <20130731144957.GC4904@netboy> <20130731152827.GB25618@radagast> <20130731163845.GB4234@netboy> <20130731184525.GA629@radagast> <20130731192229.GB8027@netboy> <20130731194332.GA900@radagast> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130731194332.GA900@radagast> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Felipe Balbi Cc: Richard Cochran , Mugunthan V N , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:43:32PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > > The new IP version has a minor changes and the offsets are sa= me as the previous > > > > > > > version, so instead of adding CPSW version number in the driv= er, make the driver > > > > > > > to fall through to the latest versions so that the new versio= n of CPSW which has > > > > > > > the same register offsets will work directly without patching= the driver. > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just add the new ver= sion > > > > > > number? > > > > > >=20 > > > > > > None of the hunks in your patch are on performance sensitive pa= ths, so > > > > > > I really can't see any point in removing the error checking. > > > > >=20 > > > > > well, if a new revision of the IP comes, the driver at least has = some > > > > > chance to work without having to be modified. If it turns out tha= t there > > > > > are really different features, then we patch a new version, other= wise we > > > > > should just assume highest known version and try it out. > > > >=20 > > > > And if the driver reads junk from some random address due to > > > > bootloader/DT/multikernel madness, it will happily peek and poke > > > > around instead of rejecting the wrong version number. > > >=20 > > > that'd be a bug in the DT anyway, why should the driver have to cope > > > with broken data ? > >=20 > > Um, it is called error checking? one more thing, why do you consider a new revision to be an error ? --=20 balbi --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+WlTAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREe2wP/067hpt7g0f40XG550GdnW8q Sq9MuhsuvkF5HN6n/VndvvVf4Yr8ZayulWnW/wXJDBpGBvMSgKRunTRUVstmyHbe i3Y8Y0Au5xhbToKIRtrPdY2uXXFoS+wVqhlDSHke9+f+2N6de2ohpOXJUp2aQBQd HRt1HwapYQDAzDn0SuFjitBLNmQ9LetdKOJ4oSJMICEVjjZ8xsAzLLnG5TxcI7a6 U9kU8hE1kp+aO03DyuM2hOp7l+C17rdSrR0Pl5fe97ti2wGMxW8WFBf8mF5MJQ0u Uj/gJmSurqAKw0B5u3Z815sk+ZF/PE3c4ohr4ZRvI5lNyIW9uq6oFFQ5UVojY+UJ AnLsman3CuegFgR6lgDwv7lWWPSIVk0xv8E1XOhn2rHj2tcPT0vxp3A3E37QMYNi 4yTuoDOTmjF5HAzlfnA9cp0MsCuAypTKJ9oeHiWQir3Uw41F6gTYAZvwaGmPHTX8 wFXXZvT7najRcoTLXfmN6s6obQiUfYQyE12Oo8X5wbPv5vX9L0A2Yx3Y1/Qc32xV e9/Rrc6n6qjtlgQ8uwXzUKI7Gz92SEfeFW3BpSozvoJKg0empGUp81B92dJdPDQr Rf9o35LHnrtNcjmqTqbvx/gJn4Ya/afbbpn1c7gxVnHsR6VpGp4t67zYe2jIHFMd Qb7Z7Jy035wxFqvtuQBu =S+ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aM3YZ0Iwxop3KEKx--