From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753390Ab0IJGcd (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:32:33 -0400 Received: from mail.perches.com ([173.55.12.10]:1605 "EHLO mail.perches.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752714Ab0IJGcK (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 02:32:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Gigabit Ethernet driver of Topcliff PCH From: Joe Perches To: Masayuki Ohtake Cc: "David S. Miller" , Randy Dunlap , John Linn , Ralf Baechle , Kristoffer Glembo , Maxime Bizon , Greg Rose , ML netdev , LKML , MeeGo , Stephen Hemminger , Jili Slaby , FUJITA Tomonori , "Wang, Qi" , "Wang, Yong Y" , Andrew , Intel OTC , "Foster, Margie" , Arjan , Toshiharu Okada , Takahiro Shimizu , Tomoya Morinaga In-Reply-To: <4C89C23A.6090707@dsn.okisemi.com> References: <4C89C23A.6090707@dsn.okisemi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:32:07 -0700 Message-ID: <1284100327.24986.324.camel@Joe-Laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 14:29 +0900, Masayuki Ohtake wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/net/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_ethtool.c b/drivers/net/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_ethtool.c [] > +static void pch_gbe_get_regs(struct net_device *netdev, > + struct ethtool_regs *regs, void *p) > +{ > + struct pch_gbe_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev); > + struct pch_gbe_hw *hw = &adapter->hw; > + struct pci_dev *pdev = adapter->pdev; > + u32 *regs_buff = p; > + u16 i, reg, tmp; > + > + regs->version = pdev->revision; > + regs->version = 0x1000000 | (regs->version << 16) | pdev->device; Might be simpler as: regs->version = 0x1000000 | (__u32)pdev->revision << 16 | pdev->device; The block below is a bit confusing to me. > + memset(p, 0, PCH_GBE_REGS_LEN * (int)sizeof(u32)); It seems the memset is unnecessary as it's completely overwritten below. > + for (i = 0; i < PCH_GBE_MAC_REGS_LEN; i++) > + regs_buff[i] = ioread32(&hw->reg->INT_ST + i); > + /* PHY register */ > + for (i = PCH_GBE_MAC_REGS_LEN, reg = 0; reg < PCH_GBE_PHY_REGS_LEN; > + i++, reg++) { > + pch_gbe_hal_read_phy_reg(&adapter->hw, reg, &tmp); > + regs_buff[i] = tmp; > + } I think i'd be simpler to do something like: for (i = 0; i < PCH_GBE_MAC_REGS_LEN; i++) *regs_buff++ = ioread32(&hw->reg->INT_ST + i); /* PHY register */ for (i = 0; i < PCH_GBE_PHY_REGS_LEN; i++) { pch_gbe_hal_read_phy_reg(&adapter->hw, i, &tmp); *regs_buff++ = tmp; } [] +void pch_gbe_mac_mar_set(struct pch_gbe_hw *hw, u8 * addr, u32 index) > +{ > + u32 mar_low, mar_high, adrmask; > + > + pr_debug("index : 0x%x\n", index); > + > + /* > + * HW expects these in little endian so we reverse the byte order > + * from network order (big endian) to little endian > + */ > + mar_high = ((u32) addr[0] | ((u32) addr[1] << 8) | > + ((u32) addr[2] << 16) | ((u32) addr[3] << 24)); > + mar_low = ((u32) addr[4] | ((u32) addr[5] << 8)); > + /* Stop the MAC Address of index. */ > + adrmask = ioread32(&hw->reg->ADDR_MASK); > + iowrite32((adrmask | (0x0001 << index)), &hw->reg->ADDR_MASK); > + /* wait busy */ > + while ((ioread32(&hw->reg->ADDR_MASK) & PCH_GBE_BUSY)) { > + int tmp = 0; > + udelay(20); > + tmp++; > + if (tmp == 1000) { > + pr_err("Address mask bit is not cleared\n"); > + break; > + } > + } You need to move the declaration of tmp out of the while. Do these really need to be busy-waits? > + /* Set the MAC address to the MAC address 1A/1B register */ > + iowrite32(mar_high, &hw->reg->mac_adr[index].high); > + iowrite32(mar_low, &hw->reg->mac_adr[index].low); > + /* Start the MAC address of index */ > + iowrite32((adrmask & ~(0x0001 << index)), &hw->reg->ADDR_MASK); > + /* wait busy */ > + while ((ioread32(&hw->reg->ADDR_MASK) & PCH_GBE_BUSY)) { > + int tmp = 0; > + udelay(20); > + tmp++; > + if (tmp == 1000) { > + pr_err("Address mask bit is not cleared\n"); > + break; > + } > + } > +} Here too. There are more of these too I'm not listing. Perhaps you could review the logic a bit more.