[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131218.174359.2230195267384857675.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 17:43:59 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: richardcochran@...il.com
Cc: rashika.kheria@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dvhart@...ux.intel.com, joe@...ches.com,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, vfalico@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, josh@...htriplett.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: ptp: Include new header file in ptp_pch.c
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:58:40 +0100
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:14:15AM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote:
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe.h | 9 ---------
>> .../net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c | 1 +
>> drivers/ptp/ptp_pch.c | 1 +
>> include/linux/ptp_pch.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/ptp_pch.h
>
> Instead of adding a random driver header into include/linux, I would
> prefer that you just move the ptp_pch.c from drivers/ptp to
> drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe. Then you can just include
> pch_gbe.h directly.
I think this begs an even more fundamental question, why isn't the PTP
driver abstraction providing the necessary methods and interfaces so
that pch_gbe doesn't have to call into the ptp_pch.c code directly?
Moving ptp_pch.c elsehwere is not desirable, it's a PTP driver so
it belongs under drivers/ptp.
Someone who understands all of these components needs to sort this
out cleanly, this patch isn't it.
--
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