RE: [PATCH net v4 4/4] rtase: Add defines for hardware version id

[Justin Lai <justinlai0215@realtek.com>]

> 
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 05:57:06PM +0800, Justin Lai wrote:
> > Add defines for hardware version id.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Justin Lai <justinlai0215@realtek.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase.h      |  5 ++++-
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase.h
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase.h
> > index 547c71937b01..4a4434869b10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase.h
> > @@ -9,7 +9,10 @@
> >  #ifndef RTASE_H
> >  #define RTASE_H
> >
> > -#define RTASE_HW_VER_MASK 0x7C800000
> > +#define RTASE_HW_VER_MASK     0x7C800000
> > +#define RTASE_HW_VER_906X_7XA 0x00800000 #define
> > +RTASE_HW_VER_906X_7XC 0x04000000 #define
> RTASE_HW_VER_907XD_V1
> > +0x04800000
> >
> >  #define RTASE_RX_DMA_BURST_256       4
> >  #define RTASE_TX_DMA_BURST_UNLIMITED 7 diff --git
> > a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > index 26331a2b7b2d..1bfe5ef40c52 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/rtase/rtase_main.c
> > @@ -1720,11 +1720,11 @@ static int rtase_get_settings(struct net_device
> *dev,
> >                                               supported);
> >
> >       switch (tp->hw_ver) {
> > -     case 0x00800000:
> > -     case 0x04000000:
> > +     case RTASE_HW_VER_906X_7XA:
> > +     case RTASE_HW_VER_906X_7XC:
> >               cmd->base.speed = SPEED_5000;
> >               break;
> > -     case 0x04800000:
> > +     case RTASE_HW_VER_907XD_V1:
> >               cmd->base.speed = SPEED_10000;
> >               break;
> >       }
> 
> 
> This is new code added in the patch #2.
> I understand that you want to have those preprocessor definitions in a separate
> patch, but why does this patch have to be the last one?
> If you had included this change before the patch #2, you would be able to send
> the final version of the above code (with no intermediate changes).
> 
> Thanks,
> Michal

Hi Michal,

Thank you for your suggestion. Upon further consideration, I also
agree that the addition of the hardware version ID definitions should
be included before patch #2.

Justin