[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <df39cfc9-6fd8-e277-870b-67059dcebb2b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 14:44:47 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com,
Allan.Nielsen@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: phy: Add helper to derive the number of
ports from a phy mode
On 7/28/22 14:32, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> +int phy_interface_num_ports(phy_interface_t interface)
>> +{
>> + switch (interface) {
>> + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA:
>> + case PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL:
>> + return 0;
>
> I've not yet looked at how this is used. Returning 0 could have
> interesting effects i guess? INTERNAL clearly does have some sort of
> path between the MAC and the PHY, so i think 1 would be a better
> value. NA is less clear, it generally means Don't touch. But again,
> there still needs to be a path between the MAC and PHY, otherwise
> there would not be any to touch.
>
> Why did you pick 0?
I would agree that returning 1 is a more sensible default to avoid breaking users of that function. However this makes me wonder, in what case will we break the following common meaning:
- Q -> quad
- P -> penta
- O -> octal
Is the helper really needed in the sense that the phy_interface_t enumeration is explicit enough thanks to or because of its name?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists