Hi Andrew, On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 03:59, Andrew Jeffery <and...@aj.id.au> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Jun 2020, at 23:56, erik-smit wrote: > > The test of the write of the dblac register was testing the old value > > instead of the new value. This would accept the write of an invalid value > > but subsequently refuse any following valid writes. > > > > Signed-off-by: erik-smit <erik.lucas.s...@gmail.com> > > --- > > Changes since v1: > > > > Changed %ld to HWADDR_PRIx to fix building on mingw > > Bit of a nitpick, but the type of the value argument is uint64_t, so shouldn't > the result of the expression captured by FTGMAC100_DBLAC_TXDES_SIZE() and > FTGMAC100_DBLAC_RXDES_SIZE() be printed with a straight PRIx64 rather than > HWADDR_PRIx?
You are correct. I didn't understand the meaning of the PRI macros and just grabbed the other PRI macro I saw getting used in the file. -- Best regards, Erik Smit
