> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:48:51PM +0200, stef...@marvell.com wrote:
> > @@ -1199,7 +1199,7 @@ static bool mvpp2_port_supports_xlg(struct
> > mvpp2_port *port)
> >
> > static bool mvpp2_port_supports_rgmii(struct mvpp2_port *port) {
> > - return !(port->priv->hw_version == MVPP22 && port->gop_id == 0);
> > + return !(port->priv->hw_version != MVPP21 && port->gop_id == 0);
>
> I'm still very much of the opinion (as raised several revisions back) that
> using
> > MVPP21 or >= MVPP22 would be a lot better - especially when we have
> situations like this. Having negatives within negatives does not help
> readability.
Ok, I would update in next series.
Thanks,
Stefan
