Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Fix clearing of IEP_CMP_CFG registers during iep_init

[Meghana Malladi <m-malladi@ti.com>]

On 11/12/24 20:13, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 07: 29: 41PM +0530, Meghana Malladi wrote: > 
> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep. c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file 
> changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git 
> a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep. c 
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep. c
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source 
> of this email and know the content is safe.
> Report Suspicious
> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK!uldqd1eFN22R6yXOvHOpn5WAo9_VFQH5-v8XYKsQLuIl9SMCOgfm9hmv8Rr9Y_bMWd5wpdH9mAXBiUbw5VhHCnva7cOtZgfLcnsXKK4$>
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 07:29:41PM +0530, Meghana Malladi wrote:
>>  drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep.c | 9 +++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep.c
>> index 5d6d1cf78e93..a96861debbe3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icss_iep.c
>> @@ -215,6 +215,10 @@ static void icss_iep_enable_shadow_mode(struct icss_iep *iep)
>>  	for (cmp = IEP_MIN_CMP; cmp < IEP_MAX_CMP; cmp++) {
>>  		regmap_update_bits(iep->map, ICSS_IEP_CMP_STAT_REG,
>>  				   IEP_CMP_STATUS(cmp), IEP_CMP_STATUS(cmp));
>> +
>> +		regmap_update_bits(iep->map, ICSS_IEP_CMP_CFG_REG,
>> +				   IEP_CMP_CFG_CMP_EN(cmp), 0);
>> +
> 
> Don't add this blank line.
> 
> You won't detect this by running checkpatch on the patch, but if you
> apply the patch and re-run checkpatch on the file then it will complain
> about this.
> 

I see, I will remove the blank line then.

>>  	}
>>  
>>  	/* enable reset counter on CMP0 event */
>> @@ -780,6 +784,11 @@ int icss_iep_exit(struct icss_iep *iep)
>>  	}
>>  	icss_iep_disable(iep);
>>  
>> +	if (iep->pps_enabled)
>> +		icss_iep_pps_enable(iep, false);
>> +	else if (iep->perout_enabled)
>> +		icss_iep_perout_enable(iep, NULL, false);
> 
> 
> Do we need the else?  Could be written as:
> 
> 	if (iep->pps_enabled)
> 		icss_iep_pps_enable(iep, false);
> 	if (iep->perout_enabled)
> 		icss_iep_perout_enable(iep, NULL, false);
> 

pps and perout and mutually exclusive, hence used if and else if.

> regards,
> dan carpenter
> 
>