[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120625.163355.2058784474741116830.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ddaney.cavm@...il.com
Cc: grant.likely@...retlab.ca, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
afleming@...il.com, david.daney@...ium.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] netdev/phy: Handle IEEE802.3 clause 45 Ethernet
PHYs
From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:11:23 -0700
> Do you realize that at the time get_phy_device() is called, there is
> no PHY device? So there can be no attribute, nor are we passing a
> register address. Neither of these suggestions apply to this
> situation.
>
> We need to know a priori if it is c22 or c45. So we need to
> communicate the type somehow to get_phy_device(). I chose an unused
> bit in the addr parameter to do this, another option would be to add a
> separate parameter to get_phy_device() specifying the type.
Then pass it in to the get() routine and store the attribute there
in the device we end up with.
There are many parameters that go into a PHY register access, so
we'll probably some day end up with a descriptor struct that the
caller prepares on-stack to pass into the actual read/write ops
via reference.
> ... and this one too I guess. Really you and Linus should come to a
> consensus on this one.
We did come up with a consensus, which is that subsystem maintainers
such as myself are at liberty to enforce localized coding style for
the bodies of code they maintain.
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists