Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 27 Apr 2026 04:30:06 +0200 | | From | Andrew Lunn <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC Patch net-next v1 1/9] r8169: add some register definitions |
| |
> > +#define RXS_8125B_RSS_UDP_V4 BIT(27) > > This register naming is unfortunate. What stands 8125B for, and what V4? > Does V4 stand for a global version of the Realtek RSS IP block? > Then the 8125B would be redundant.
Maybe UDP carried inside an IPv4 package?
> > + RSS_CTRL_IPV4_SUPP = (1 << 1), > > + RSS_CTRL_TCP_IPV6_SUPP = (1 << 2), > > + RSS_CTRL_IPV6_SUPP = (1 << 3), > > + RSS_CTRL_IPV6_EXT_SUPP = (1 << 4), > > + RSS_CTRL_TCP_IPV6_EXT_SUPP = (1 << 5), > > + RSS_CTRL_UDP_IPV4_SUPP = (1 << 11), > > + RSS_CTRL_UDP_IPV6_SUPP = (1 << 12), > > + RSS_CTRL_UDP_IPV6_EXT_SUPP = (1 << 13), > > + RSS_INDIRECTION_TBL_8125_V2 = 0x4700, > > + RSS_KEY_8125 = 0x4600,
> > + RxUDPT_v4 = (1 << 19), > > + RxTCPT_v4 = (1 << 18), > > + RxUDPF_v4 = (1 << 16), /* UDP/IP checksum failed */ > > + RxTCPF_v4 = (1 << 15), /* TCP/IP checksum failed */
I agree that in general there needs to be better naming. These could again be referring to IPv4? But the v2 references are clearly not an IP version.
Andrew
|  |