From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Vick, Matthew" Subject: Re: [PATCH] igb: fix PHC stopping on max freq Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20130320201153.7fc5e844@griffin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" , Stefan Assmann , Miroslav Lichvar To: Jiri Benc Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:42844 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753955Ab3CTWzH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Mar 2013 18:55:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130320201153.7fc5e844@griffin> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 3/20/13 12:11 PM, "Jiri Benc" wrote: >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:17:25 +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote: >> Good catch on this, Jiri! I know the math works out the same, but I'd >> prefer it if you changed the max_adj value to 999999999, since that is >> technically what we can accept before we have any issues. If you >>re-submit >> with this change, I'll add my ACK and we can run it through our internal >> testing. Thanks! > >But the real maximum value is actually 999999881, as anything higher >than that would be capped to 999999881 by the driver. I don't think the >driver should advertise higher max_adj than it is able to fulfill, >otherwise there would be no need for the field. I prefer 999999999 as it's something that looks slightly less "magic number"-y (plus looks like the other devices in igb) and is still technically something that can be passed down without error. Ultimately not a big deal and I can understand your argument, so I'm okay putting my personal preference aside on this one.