[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c98f3ff8-9d4e-a007-1fef-130fcf580201@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:59:15 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"moderated list:ARM SUB-ARCHITECTURES"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 06/10] net: dsa: Migrate to
device_find_class()
On 01/19/2017 10:12 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
> Back to the actual code that triggered this discussion, the whole
> purpose is just a safeguard. Given a device reference, we can assume
> that it is indeed the backing device for a net_device, and we could do a
> to_net_device() right away (and crash if someone did not write correct
> platform_data structures), or, by walking the device tree (the device
> driver model one) we can make sure it does belong in the proper class
> and this is indeed what we think it is.
Greg, did Russell's explanation clarify things, or do you still think
this is completely bogus and we need to re design the whole thing?
Just asking so I can try to resubmit just the preparatory parts or just
the whole thing.
Thank you
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists