Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-next 2/7] ice: Add SDPs support for E825C

From: Simon Horman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 14:25:05 +0100

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 05:09:26PM +0200, Karol Kolacinski wrote:
> Add support of PTP SDPs (Software Definable Pins) for E825C products.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <[email-masked]>
> Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <[email-masked]>

...

> @@ -2623,9 +2633,13 @@ static void ice_ptp_set_funcs_e82x(struct ice_pf *pf)
>  		pf->ptp.info.getcrosststamp = ice_ptp_getcrosststamp_e82x;
>  
>  #endif /* CONFIG_ICE_HWTS */
> -	pf->ptp.info.enable = ice_ptp_gpio_enable;
> -	pf->ptp.info.verify = ice_verify_pin;
> -	pf->ptp.ice_pin_desc = ice_pin_desc_e82x;
> +	if (ice_is_e825c(&pf->hw)) {
> +		pf->ptp.ice_pin_desc = ice_pin_desc_e825c;
> +		pf->ptp.info.n_pins = ICE_PIN_DESC_ARR_LEN(ice_pin_desc_e825c);
> +	} else {
> +		pf->ptp.ice_pin_desc = ice_pin_desc_e82x;
> +		pf->ptp.info.n_pins = ICE_PIN_DESC_ARR_LEN(ice_pin_desc_e82x);
> +	}
>  	pf->ptp.info.n_pins = ICE_PIN_DESC_ARR_LEN(ice_pin_desc_e82x);

Hi Karol,

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but should the line immediately
above be remove to avoid overwriting the value for pf->ptp.info.n_pins
set in the new if/else condition above?

>  	ice_ptp_setup_pin_cfg(pf);
>  }
> @@ -2673,6 +2687,8 @@ static void ice_ptp_set_caps(struct ice_pf *pf)
>  	info->settime64 = ice_ptp_settime64;
>  	info->n_per_out = GLTSYN_TGT_H_IDX_MAX;
>  	info->n_ext_ts = GLTSYN_EVNT_H_IDX_MAX;
> +	info->enable = ice_ptp_gpio_enable;
> +	info->verify = ice_verify_pin;
>  
>  	if (ice_is_e810(&pf->hw))
>  		ice_ptp_set_funcs_e810(pf, info);

Moving these assignments seems unnecessary, but ok.