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 21:45:25 +0300 Message-ID: <20130731184525.GA629@radagast> References: <1375272746-24446-1-git-send-email-mugunthanvnm@ti.com> <20130731144957.GC4904@netboy> <20130731152827.GB25618@radagast> <20130731163845.GB4234@netboy> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ" Cc: Felipe Balbi , Mugunthan V N , , , To: Richard Cochran Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130731163845.GB4234@netboy> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:38:46PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:28:27PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 04:49:59PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:42:26PM +0530, Mugunthan V N wrote: > > > > The new IP version has a minor changes and the offsets are same as = the previous > > > > version, so instead of adding CPSW version number in the driver, ma= ke the driver > > > > to fall through to the latest versions so that the new version of C= PSW which has > > > > the same register offsets will work directly without patching the d= river. > > >=20 > > > This doesn't make any sense to me. Why not just add the new version > > > number? > > >=20 > > > None of the hunks in your patch are on performance sensitive paths, 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 that there > > are really different features, then we patch a new version, otherwise 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. that'd be a bug in the DT anyway, why should the driver have to cope with broken data ? --=20 balbi --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+VtFAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREt8YP/0g1SGNhwgjarUHZuOgucHG/ V+B9STCuNWPTJ2zl6+1Mj/23LUmc6Zw/c9A3o3lMXS6OPlIN0a0T0FhB+OnZhpjb 2Qmv/9QOt/1MLvCBTz7oNfFtDDkdEAUWNyi24POvmxI8pNUZJ5DoTqmd+a6JInOR Fu9fTPkSTzPIS7de4hx33qEwilk8QyxSdc0SzfzkeMqwo4/cFeSoogaNX01eeZ7G uqJwJ6CgpOYu99xnFYqac2tyUIzsbB6AJ0SVroPYuiNfK/A9SSXCUoFnX+y70DJq l10f3rM1OymdeC4+0SepCJAWcgNgRHC6SHJEUpibentRSby4lCM63UPGaEbc60Od t4+aBDuHvnUDntQow5hNjGnevrv8Vd//gVQxbpwwmK6asqb3VwOMwzZfC3/DKaqJ BDF7QibkAX97xMTGPX7yCHNxxLk50sdso54maT0PPZk5XS1o/AXH1B1HyykuVR6Z +ldqE+uZ2oeh3kMomfBoOtH38BHkte4JMEpbqrKYH+RiaNMy9jybFJx1th8TAvRX cEkXFzudsoaas9P9GoSZMnE6tEJE/zf92ohsNnt2LM34+R6O/VdMCbG5YL0qY2Yw nlhhsbGb661OonWtbi+AOQJdf4jj1+0xJkvNZgBNENVhEHp+qhQOseQ7b4Cu8o55 39TAjFlAYmlEcPMmcf2X =KKEM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rwEMma7ioTxnRzrJ--