--- drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_tsn.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_tsn.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_tsn.c index 02dd41aff634..61f047ebf34d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_tsn.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_tsn.c @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ static unsigned int igc_tsn_new_flags(struct igc_adapter *adapter) return new_flags; }+static bool igc_tsn_is_tx_mode_in_tsn(struct igc_adapter *adapter)+{ + struct igc_hw *hw = &adapter->hw; + + return (bool)(rd32(IGC_TQAVCTRL) & IGC_TQAVCTRL_TRANSMIT_MODE_TSN);Perhaps it is more a question of taste than anything else. But my preference, FIIW, is to avoid casts. And I think in this case using !! is a common pattern. (Completely untested!) return !!(rd32(IGC_TQAVCTRL) & IGC_TQAVCTRL_TRANSMIT_MODE_TSN);
Sure, will update.
+ + if ((any_tsn_enabled && !igc_tsn_is_tx_mode_in_tsn(adapter)) || + (!any_tsn_enabled && igc_tsn_is_tx_mode_in_tsn(adapter))) + return true; + else + return false;Likewise, this is probably more a matter of taste than anything else. But I think this could be expressed as: (Completely untested!) return (any_tsn_enabled && !igc_tsn_is_tx_mode_in_tsn(adapter)) || (!any_tsn_enabled && igc_tsn_is_tx_mode_in_tsn(adapter)); Similarly in the previous patch of this series.
Will update, your suggestion is better, lesser parenthesis. Thanks.
