On 12/06/2016 05:50 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> + if (phydrv->features & (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause)) {
>>> >+ phydev->supported &= ~(SUPPORTED_Pause |
>>> SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause);
>>> >+ phydev->supported |= phydrv->features &
>>> >+ (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause);
>> Is not the & (SUPPORTED_Pause | SUPPORTED_Asym_Pause) redundant here
>> anyway?
>
> I'm just trying to be safe. Can I be certain that those bits are
> already zero?
The bits are most likely not zero, since we have all the
PHY_GBIT_FEATURES bits defined in there as well, but I don't think that
is a real problem though, because we did this before:
/* Start out supporting everything. Eventually,
* a controller will attach, and may modify one
* or both of these values
*/
phydev->supported = phydrv->features;
of_set_phy_supported(phydev);
phydev->advertising = phydev->supported;
which is why this made me think the & (SUPPORTED_Pause |
SUPPPORTED_Asym_Pause) here is most likely redundant?
Thanks!
--
Florian
