[Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH v3 iwl-net 2/4] ice: Fix quad registers read on E825

[Nitka, Grzegorz]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman <horms at kernel.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 2, 2024 4:11 PM
> To: Nitka, Grzegorz <grzegorz.nitka at intel.com>
> Cc: intel-wired-lan at lists.osuosl.org; netdev at vger.kernel.org; Nguyen,
> Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen at intel.com>; Kitszel, Przemyslaw
> <przemyslaw.kitszel at intel.com>; Kolacinski, Karol
> <karol.kolacinski at intel.com>; Kubalewski, Arkadiusz
> <arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 iwl-net 2/4] ice: Fix quad registers read on E825
> 
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:45:41PM +0100, Grzegorz Nitka wrote:
> > From: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski at intel.com>
> >
> > Quad registers are read/written incorrectly. E825 devices always use
> > quad 0 address and differentiate between the PHYs by changing SBQ
> > destination device (phy_0 or phy_0_peer).
> >
> > Add helpers for reading/writing PTP registers shared per quad and use
> > correct quad address and SBQ destination device based on port.
> >
> > Rename rmn_0 to phy_0 and remove rmn_1 and rmn_2 as E82X HW does
> not
> > support it. Rename eth56g_phy_1 to phy_0_peer.
> >
> > Fixes: 7cab44f1c35f ("ice: Introduce ETH56G PHY model for E825C
> products")
> > Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Kubalewski <arkadiusz.kubalewski at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Karol Kolacinski <karol.kolacinski at intel.com>
> > ---
> > V2 -> V3: Replaced lower/upper_32_bits calls with lower/upper_16_bits
> > V1 -> V2: Fixed kdoc issues
> >
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_common.c   |   2 +-
> >  .../net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_consts.h   |  75 ++----
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.c   | 237 +++++++++++-------
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_ptp_hw.h   |  37 ++-
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_sbq_cmd.h  |   7 +-
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ice/ice_type.h     |   1 -
> >  6 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 182 deletions(-)
> 
> This patch seems to mix bug fixes and cleanup.
> Which leads to a rather large patch - larger than is desirable for stable IMHO.
> 
> Could we consider a more minimal fix for iwl-net.
> And then follow-up with clean-ups for iwl?
> 
> ...

Thanks Simon for reviewing this.
Sure, will try to adjust this patch to include only minimum changes to address
the original issue.