[PATCH net-next 5/6] net: ti: icss-iep: Move icss_iep structure

[Dan Carpenter]

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 11:11:21AM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> On 10/08/24 1:40 am, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:37:59PM +0530, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> >> -	struct ptp_clock *ptp_clock;
> >> -	struct mutex ptp_clk_mutex;	/* PHC access serializer */
> >> -	u32 def_inc;
> >> -	s16 slow_cmp_inc;
> > 
> > [ cut ]
> > 
> >> +	struct ptp_clock *ptp_clock;
> >> +	struct mutex ptp_clk_mutex;	/* PHC access serializer */
> >> +	spinlock_t irq_lock; /* CMP IRQ vs icss_iep_ptp_enable access */
> >         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > The patch adds this new struct member.  When you're moving code around, please
> > just move the code.  Don't fix checkpatch warnings or do any other cleanups.
> > 
> 
> My bad. I didn't notice this new struct member was introduced. I will
> take care of it.
> 
> Also apart from doing the code movement, this patch also does the
> following change. Instead of hardcoding the value 4, the patch uses
> emac->iep->def_inc. Since the iep->def_inc is now accessible from
> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/icssg/icssg_prueth.c
> 
> @@ -384,7 +384,8 @@ static void prueth_iep_settime(void *clockops_data,
> u64 ns)
>  	sc_desc.cyclecounter0_set = cyclecount & GENMASK(31, 0);
>  	sc_desc.cyclecounter1_set = (cyclecount & GENMASK(63, 32)) >> 32;
>  	sc_desc.iepcount_set = ns % cycletime;
> -	sc_desc.CMP0_current = cycletime - 4; //Count from 0 to (cycle time)-4
> +	/* Count from 0 to (cycle time) - emac->iep->def_inc */
> +	sc_desc.CMP0_current = cycletime - emac->iep->def_inc;
> 
>  	memcpy_toio(sc_descp, &sc_desc, sizeof(sc_desc));
> 
> 
> Should I keep the above change as it is or should I split it into a
> separate patch and make this patch strictly for code movement. I kept
> the above change as part of this patch because it is related with the
> code movement. Moving the iep structure from icss_iep.c to icss_iep.h
> makes it accessible to icssg_prueth.c so I thought keeping them together
> will be a better idea.
> 
> Please let me know if this is okay.
> 

Huh, I saw that the comment had changed but I assumed that was because
checkpatch had complained.  I didn't notice that the 4 changed to
emac->iep->def_inc.  That's the kind of change that we do really want to notice.

Yep.  Please, could you split that out into a separate patch.

regards,
dan carpenter