Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:50:11 +0200 | From | Marco Felsch <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] net: fec: limit register access on i.MX6UL |
| |
On 22-09-20, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > +/* for i.MX6ul */ > > +static u32 fec_enet_register_offset_6ul[] = { > > + FEC_IEVENT, FEC_IMASK, FEC_R_DES_ACTIVE_0, FEC_X_DES_ACTIVE_0, > > + FEC_ECNTRL, FEC_MII_DATA, FEC_MII_SPEED, FEC_MIB_CTRLSTAT, FEC_R_CNTRL, > > + FEC_X_CNTRL, FEC_ADDR_LOW, FEC_ADDR_HIGH, FEC_OPD, FEC_TXIC0, FEC_RXIC0, > > + FEC_HASH_TABLE_HIGH, FEC_HASH_TABLE_LOW, FEC_GRP_HASH_TABLE_HIGH, > > + FEC_GRP_HASH_TABLE_LOW, FEC_X_WMRK, FEC_R_DES_START_0, > > + FEC_X_DES_START_0, FEC_R_BUFF_SIZE_0, FEC_R_FIFO_RSFL, FEC_R_FIFO_RSEM, > > + FEC_R_FIFO_RAEM, FEC_R_FIFO_RAFL, FEC_RACC, > > + RMON_T_DROP, RMON_T_PACKETS, RMON_T_BC_PKT, RMON_T_MC_PKT, > > + RMON_T_CRC_ALIGN, RMON_T_UNDERSIZE, RMON_T_OVERSIZE, RMON_T_FRAG, > > + RMON_T_JAB, RMON_T_COL, RMON_T_P64, RMON_T_P65TO127, RMON_T_P128TO255, > > + RMON_T_P256TO511, RMON_T_P512TO1023, RMON_T_P1024TO2047, > > + RMON_T_P_GTE2048, RMON_T_OCTETS, > > + IEEE_T_DROP, IEEE_T_FRAME_OK, IEEE_T_1COL, IEEE_T_MCOL, IEEE_T_DEF, > > + IEEE_T_LCOL, IEEE_T_EXCOL, IEEE_T_MACERR, IEEE_T_CSERR, IEEE_T_SQE, > > + IEEE_T_FDXFC, IEEE_T_OCTETS_OK, > > + RMON_R_PACKETS, RMON_R_BC_PKT, RMON_R_MC_PKT, RMON_R_CRC_ALIGN, > > + RMON_R_UNDERSIZE, RMON_R_OVERSIZE, RMON_R_FRAG, RMON_R_JAB, > > + RMON_R_RESVD_O, RMON_R_P64, RMON_R_P65TO127, RMON_R_P128TO255, > > + RMON_R_P256TO511, RMON_R_P512TO1023, RMON_R_P1024TO2047, > > + RMON_R_P_GTE2048, RMON_R_OCTETS, > > + IEEE_R_DROP, IEEE_R_FRAME_OK, IEEE_R_CRC, IEEE_R_ALIGN, IEEE_R_MACERR, > > + IEEE_R_FDXFC, IEEE_R_OCTETS_OK > > +}; > > #else > > static __u32 fec_enet_register_version = 1; > > Seeing this, i wonder if the i.MX6ul needs its own register version, > so that ethtool(1) knows what registers are valid?
Regarding the uAPI (uapi/linux/ethtool.h): 8<------------------------------------------------- * @version: Dump format version. This is driver-specific and may * distinguish different chips/revisions. Drivers must use new * version numbers whenever the dump format changes in an * incompatible way. 8<------------------------------------------------- I would say yes.
Regards, Marco
| |