On 28/04/2025 9:02, Faizal Rahim wrote:
Rename macros to include the TXDCTL_ prefix for consistency and clarity.
This aligns naming with the register they configure and improves code
readability.

Signed-off-by: Faizal Rahim <faizal.abdul.ra...@linux.intel.com>
---
  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc.h      | 6 +++---
  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c | 6 +++---
  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc.h 
b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc.h
index e9d180eac015..bc37cc8deefb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc.h
@@ -487,10 +487,10 @@ static inline u32 igc_rss_type(const union 
igc_adv_rx_desc *rx_desc)
   */
  #define IGC_RX_PTHRESH                        8
  #define IGC_RX_HTHRESH                        8
-#define IGC_TX_PTHRESH                 8
-#define IGC_TX_HTHRESH                 1
+#define IGC_TXDCTL_PTHRESH             8
+#define IGC_TXDCTL_HTHRESH             1
  #define IGC_RX_WTHRESH                        4
-#define IGC_TX_WTHRESH                 16
+#define IGC_TXDCTL_WTHRESH             16
/* Additional Transmit Descriptor Control definitions */
  /* Ena specific Tx Queue */
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c 
b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
index 27575a1e1777..725c8f0b9f3d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igc/igc_main.c
@@ -749,9 +749,9 @@ static void igc_configure_tx_ring(struct igc_adapter 
*adapter,
        wr32(IGC_TDH(reg_idx), 0);
        writel(0, ring->tail);
- txdctl |= IGC_TX_PTHRESH;
-       txdctl |= IGC_TX_HTHRESH << 8;
-       txdctl |= IGC_TX_WTHRESH << 16;
+       txdctl |= IGC_TXDCTL_PTHRESH;
+       txdctl |= IGC_TXDCTL_HTHRESH << 8;
+       txdctl |= IGC_TXDCTL_WTHRESH << 16;
txdctl |= IGC_TXDCTL_QUEUE_ENABLE;
        wr32(IGC_TXDCTL(reg_idx), txdctl);

If you do this, I think you should apply the same change to the RXDCTL macros that are right next to the TXDCTL ones. Otherwise you are trading one inconsistency for another. :)

Reply via email to