[PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write

2018-01-22 Thread Ivan Mikhaylov
STA control register has areas of mode and opcodes for opeations. 18 bit is using for mode selection, where 0 is old MIO/MDIO access method and 1 is indirect access mode. 19-20 bits are using for setting up read/write operation(STA opcodes). In current state 'read' is set into old MIO/MDIO mode wit

Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write

2018-01-22 Thread Christian Lamparter
On Monday, January 22, 2018 5:00:38 PM CET Ivan Mikhaylov wrote: > STA control register has areas of mode and opcodes for opeations. 18 bit is > using for mode selection, where 0 is old MIO/MDIO access method and 1 is > indirect access mode. 19-20 bits are using for setting up read/write > operatio

Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write

2018-01-22 Thread Ivan Mikhaylov
>Something looks wrong here?! The commit message talks about bit 18, 19 and 20. >However, 0x0800, 0x1000, 0x2000 and are like bit 11, 12 and 13? Furthermore, >what about the EMAC_STACR_STAC_MASK? shouldn't it be 0x1800 now (or delete it >since it doesn't look like it's used anywhere?). Christian, n

Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write

2018-01-22 Thread Christian Lamparter
On Monday, January 22, 2018 8:01:46 PM CET Ivan Mikhaylov wrote: > >Something looks wrong here?! The commit message talks about bit 18, 19 and > >20. > >However, 0x0800, 0x1000, 0x2000 and are like bit 11, 12 and 13? Furthermore, > >what about the EMAC_STACR_STAC_MASK? shouldn't it be 0x1800 now (

Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/ibm/emac: wrong bit is used for STA control register write

2018-01-23 Thread Ivan Mikhaylov
> So if someone tries to #define EMAC_STACR_STAC_WRITE BIT(18) it would be > 0x4 instead. This is where the confusion is coming from. Can you please > at least mention this somewhere that all the bits in the commit message are > in "MSB 0" format? It's confusing enough as it is ;). Yeap, sure,