[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180319203923.GD1607@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:39:23 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] sfp/phylink: move module EEPROM ethtool access
into netdev core ethtool
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:20:32PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 06:48 AM, Russell King wrote:
> > Provide a pointer to the SFP bus in struct net_device, so that the
> > ethtool module EEPROM methods can access the SFP directly, rather
> > than needing every user to provide a hook for it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> > ---
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is it worth adding a pointer to struct net_device for these two
> > methods, rather than having multiple duplicate veneers to vector
> > the ethtool module EEPROM ioctls through to the SFP bus layer?
>
> Considering the negative diffstat and the fact that it solves real
> problems for you, I would say yes.
We have also received a bunch of patches removing the phydev pointer
for driver private structures and making use of the net_device one. It
would be nice to avoid the same with phylink.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists