[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <SN1PR11MB0446158DF61F0137E980AA56ECBE0@SN1PR11MB0446.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:50:16 +0000
From: <Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com>
To: <marex@...x.de>, <pavel@...x.de>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <sergio.paracuellos@...il.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 net-next] net: dsa: microchip: add KSZ9477 I2C driver
> >>>> This header file makes no sense. Please move the functions into .c
> >>>
> >>> No, that would make code bigger & slower.
> >>>
> >>> It makes sense to me. But I'd add "inline" keyword to make the goal
> >>> explicit.
> >>
> >> 1) It makes no sense to have header files for things like this. The
> >> functions are only used within the single .c file.
> >>
> >> 2) You cannot inline them, as they are used as ops.
> >
> > Ok, sorry for the noise.
>
> If you were to use regmap, this whole boilerplate would go away ...
Sometimes I am confused about this review process.
The new code is same as previous code submitted. The old code was accepted,
but then there are objections to the new code.
So if I change the new code, should I go back to correct the old code?
The ksz9477_i2c.c should be the same as ksz9477_i2c.c while ksz_i2c.h matches
ksz_spi.h. The idea is ksz_i2c.h can be used by another switch driver like ksz####_i2c.c.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists