linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] net: dsa: ocelot: felix: add support for VSC75XX control over SPI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 16 Aug 2021 01:05:47 +0100
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        claudiu.manoil@....com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] net: dsa: ocelot: felix: add
 support for VSC75XX control over SPI

On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 04:27:53PM -0700, Colin Foster wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:14:54AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > > index a84129d18007..d0b3f6be360f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > > @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static int vsc9959_mdio_bus_alloc(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> > >  	int rc;
> > >  
> > >  	felix->pcs = devm_kcalloc(dev, felix->info->num_ports,
> > > -				  sizeof(struct lynx_pcs *),
> > > +				  sizeof(struct phylink_pcs *),
> > >  				  GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  	if (!felix->pcs) {
> > >  		dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate array for PCS PHYs\n");
> > > @@ -1095,8 +1095,8 @@ static int vsc9959_mdio_bus_alloc(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> > >  
> > >  	for (port = 0; port < felix->info->num_ports; port++) {
> > >  		struct ocelot_port *ocelot_port = ocelot->ports[port];
> > > +		struct phylink_pcs *phylink;
> > >  		struct mdio_device *pcs;
> > > -		struct lynx_pcs *lynx;
> > 
> > Normally, "phylink" is used to refer to the main phylink data
> > structure, so I'm not too thrilled to see it getting re-used for the
> > PCS. However, as you have a variable called "pcs" already, I suppose
> > you don't have much choice.
> > 
> > That said, it would be nice to have consistent naming through at
> > least a single file, and you do have "pcs" below to refer to this
> > same thing.
> > 
> > Maybe using plpcs or ppcs would suffice? Or maybe use the "long name"
> > of phylink_pcs ?
> 
> I noticed this as well. It seems to me like the mdio_device variable
> name of pcs is misleading, and perhaps should be "mdio" and phylink_pcs
> should be pcs, or any of the alternatives you suggested.

Yes, we could alternatively could use mdiodev for mdio devices,
which would free up "pcs" for use with struct phylink_pcs.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!