[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190826134418.GB29480@t480s.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:44:18 -0400
From: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To: Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 6/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fully support SERDES
on Topaz family
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:27:17 +0200, Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 17:38:30 +0200
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > > +static int mv88e6xxx_port_set_cmode(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> > > + phy_interface_t mode, bool allow_over_2500,
> > > + bool make_cmode_writable)
> >
> > I don't like these two parameters. The caller of this function can do
> > the check for allow_over_2500 and error out before calling this.
> >
> > Is make_cmode_writable something that could be done once at probe and
> > then forgotten about? Or is it needed before every write? At least
> > move it into the specific port_set_cmode() that requires it.
>
> It can be done once at probe. At first I thought about doing this in
> setup_errata, but this is not an erratum. So shall I create a new
> method for this in chip operations structure? Something like
> port_additional_setup() ?
No. Those "setup" or "config" functions are likely to do everything and
become a mess, thus unmaintainable. Operations must be specific.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists