[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YYqEuo8rwJ93AczD@Ansuel-xps.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 15:24:58 +0100
From: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/8] leds: trigger: netdev: drop
NETDEV_LED_MODE_LINKUP from mode
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 04:02:57AM +0100, Marek BehĂșn wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 03:26:03 +0100
> Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Drop NETDEV_LED_MODE_LINKUP from mode list and convert to a simple bool
> > that will be true or false based on the carrier link. No functional
> > change intended.
>
> The last time I tried this, I did it for all the fields that are now in
> the bitmap, and I was told that the bitmap guarantees atomic access, so
> it should be used...
>
> But why do you needs this? I guess I will see in another patch.
>
The link_up seems something internal to the netdev trigger and not
something strictly related to the blink modes. Why put a status in the
mode variable?
> Marek
--
Ansuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists