On 2/14/2019 3:00 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> Hi Jose
>
> On 2/14/19 3:18 PM, Jose Abreu wrote:
>> Hi Alexandre,
>>
>> On 2/14/2019 2:12 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>> In dwmac4_wrback_get_rx_timestamp_status we looking for a RX
>>> timestamp.
>>> For that receive descriptors are handled and so we should use
>>> defines
>>> related to receive descriptors. It'll no change the functional
>>> behavior
>>> as RDES3_RDES1_VALID=TDES3_RS1V=BIT(26) but it makes code
>>> easier to read.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.tor...@st.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git
>>> a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
>>> index 20299f6..9f062b3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac4_descs.c
>>> @@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ static int
>>> dwmac4_wrback_get_rx_timestamp_status(void *desc, void
>>> *next_desc,
>>> int ret = -EINVAL;
>>> /* Get the status from normal w/b descriptor */
>>> - if (likely(p->des3 & TDES3_RS1V)) {
>>> + if (likely(p->des3 & RDES3_RDES1_VALID)) {
>>
>> Shouldn't this also use le32_to_cpu() like bellow ?
>
> I agree. I focused on cosmetic but yes you are right, we have to
> take car about endianness as this IP is used by different
> processors (using different endianness). I gonna send a v2.
> I think dwmac4_rx_check_timestamp have the same kind of issue.
> Another patch should be sent for it. no ?
Yeah. Maybe you can send all of that in this v2 patch also ?
Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu
>
> regards
> Alex
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jose Miguel Abreu
>>
>>> if (likely(le32_to_cpu(p->des1) &
>>> RDES1_TIMESTAMP_AVAILABLE)) {
>>> int i = 0;
>>>
