Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 05/13] net: mscc: ocelot: convert QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE and SYS_PORT_MODE to regfields

[Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>]

On 5/30/2020 2:25 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 00:18, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/30/2020 4:51 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
>>>
>>> Currently Felix and Ocelot share the same bit layout in these per-port
>>> registers, but Seville does not. So we need reg_fields for that.
>>>
>>> Actually since these are per-port registers, we need to also specify the
>>> number of ports, and register size per port, and use the regmap API for
>>> multiple ports.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> None.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>>>       /* Core: Enable port for frame transfer */
>>> -     ocelot_write_rix(ocelot, QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_INGRESS_DROP_MODE |
>>> -                      QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_SCH_NEXT_CFG(1) |
>>> -                      QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_PORT_ENA,
>>> -                      QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE, port);
>>> +     ocelot_fields_write(ocelot, port,
>>> +                         QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_INGRESS_DROP_MODE, 1);
>>> +     ocelot_fields_write(ocelot, port,
>>> +                         QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_PORT_ENA, 1);
>>
>> I am a bit confused throughout this patch sometimes SCH_NEXT_CFG is set
>> to 1, sometimes not, this makes it a bit harder to review the
>> conversion, assuming this is fine:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>> --
>> Florian
> 
> Yes, this is a subtle point, but it's correct the way it is, and I
> didn't want to insist on the details of it, but now that you mentioned
> it, let's go.
> Seville does not have the QSYS_SWITCH_PORT_MODE_SCH_NEXT_CFG register
> field at all. And using the previous API (ocelot_write_rix), we were
> only writing 1 for Felix and Ocelot, which was their hardware-default
> value, so we weren't changing its value in practice. So the equivalent
> with ocelot_fields_write would be to simply not do anything at all for
> the SCH_NEXT_CFG field, which is actually something that is required
> if we want to support Seville too.

OK, thank you for providing these details.
-- 
Florian