netdev - Re: [net-next 1/4] phy: add the EEE support and the way to access to the MMD regs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Mar 2012 15:39:45 +0100
From:	Giuseppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	rayagond@...avyalabs.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 1/4] phy: add the EEE support and the way to access
 to the MMD regs

On 3/8/2012 7:29 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 15:54 +0100, Giuseppe CAVALLARO wrote:
>> Hello Ben
>>
>> thanks for your review and sorry for my delay.
>>
>> On 3/6/2012 6:05 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> +static inline void mmd_phy_cl45(struct mii_bus *bus, int prtad, int devad,
>>>>> +				int addr)
>>>> [...]
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * read_phy_mmd - reads data from the MMC register (clause 22 to access to
>>>>> + * clause 45)
>>>> [...]
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * write_phy_mmd - writes data to the MMC register (clause 22 to access to
>>>>> + * clause 45)
>>>>
>>>> These names need to be changed as phylib also supports (or is intended
>>>> to support) real clause 45 PHYs.
>>
>>
>> What do you suggest? Do I have to rename these functions for example as?
>>
>> write_phy_mmd  ---->    phy_write_mmd_cl45
>> read_phy_mmd   ---->    phy_read_mmd_cl45
> 
> These are a means to access MMDs through the clause 22 MDIO protocol, so

yes indeed :-)

> it seems to me that the name should include '22' and not '45'.  But
> perhaps it would be more obvious to use the word 'indirect'.

ok for phy_write/read_mmd_indirect

> 
>> I've also another doubt. I put this code in phy_device.c. Is it correct?
>>
>> Maybe, it could be better have it in phy.c? What do you think?
> [...]
> 
> No idea, I don't have any involvement in phylib.

ok. I'll keep the code in phy_device unless to have further feedback
from other developers.

peppe

> 
> Ben.
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html