netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 2/5] net: phy: Move time stamping interface into the generic mdio layer.

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180321214513.5kkw4qpbhp3juxur@localhost>
Date:   Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:45:13 -0700
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 2/5] net: phy: Move time stamping
 interface into the generic mdio layer.

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:10:07PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > +	phydev->mdio.ts_info = dp83640_ts_info;
> > +	phydev->mdio.hwtstamp = dp83640_hwtstamp;
> > +	phydev->mdio.rxtstamp = dp83640_rxtstamp;
> > +	phydev->mdio.txtstamp = dp83640_txtstamp;
> 
> Why is this implemented a the mdio_device level and not at the
> mdio_driver level? This looks like the wrong level at which this is done.

The question could be asked of:

struct mdio_device {
	int (*bus_match)(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv);
	void (*device_free)(struct mdio_device *mdiodev);
	void (*device_remove)(struct mdio_device *mdiodev);
}

I saw how this is done for the phy, etc, but I don't see any benefit
of doing it that way.  It would add an extra layer (or two) of
indirection and save the space four pointer functions.  Is that
trade-off worth it?

Thanks,
Richard