RE: [PATCH RESEND v4 net-next 10/14] net: enetc: refactor SI VLAN promiscuous mode configuration

> > Remove the enetc_set_vlan_promisc(), enetc_enable_si_vlan_promisc() and
> > enetc_disable_si_vlan_promisc() functions, and introduce a new unified
> > function enetc_set_si_vlan_promisc() to enable or disable VLAN
> > promiscuous mode for a specific SI. This simplifies the logic and makes
> > the interface more straightforward. The vlan_promisc_simap field in
> > struct enetc_pf is no longer needed to track the current state.
> >
> > As ENETC V4 only changes the address offset of PSIPVMR register compared
> > to V1 without any functional difference, enetc_set_si_vlan_promisc() can
> > be moved to enetc_pf_common.c in the future with minor adjustments to be
> > reused by the ENETC V4 driver
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  .../net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h   |  5 ++-
> >  .../net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_pf.c   | 36 ++++++++-----------
> >  .../net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_pf.h   |  1 -
> >  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
> b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
> > index 66bfda60da9c..16da732dc5de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h
> > @@ -185,9 +185,8 @@ enum enetc_bdr_type {TX, RX};
> >  #define  PSIPMMR_SI_MAC_MP(n)	BIT((n) + 16)
> >
> >  #define ENETC_PSIPVMR		0x001c
> > -#define ENETC_VLAN_PROMISC_MAP_ALL	0x7
> > -#define ENETC_PSIPVMR_SET_VP(simap)	((simap) & 0x7)
> > -#define ENETC_PSIPVMR_SET_VUTA(simap)	(((simap) & 0x7) << 16)
> > +#define  PSIPVMR_SI_VLAN_P(n)	BIT(n) /* n = SI index */
> 
> I suppose it would have been nice to only have a single space after #define
> above.

I intentionally used two spaces for the macros that define the new register
bit fields to distinguish them from the macros that define the register offsets,
making the hierarchy clearer. :)

> 
> The rest of the code looks right and I think the promisc logic is clearer, so:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Joe Damato <[email protected]>