[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0a9e016b-4ee3-1f1c-0222-74180f130e6c@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 19:36:44 -0800
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk
Cc: andrew@...n.ch, hkallweit1@...il.com, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com,
thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, nbd@...nwrt.org, john@...ozen.org,
sean.wang@...iatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com,
matthias.bgg@...il.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
alexandre.torgue@...com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, radhey.shyam.pandey@...inx.com,
michal.simek@...inx.com, vivien.didelot@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [CFT PATCH net-next v2] net: phylink: rename mac_link_state() op
to mac_pcs_get_state()
On 11/21/2019 7:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:36:22 +0000
>
>> Rename the mac_link_state() method to mac_pcs_get_state() to make it
>> clear that it should be returning the MACs PCS current state, which
>> is used for inband negotiation rather than just reading back what the
>> MAC has been configured for. Update the documentation to explicitly
>> mention that this is for inband.
>>
>> We drop the return value as well; most of phylink doesn't check the
>> return value and it is not clear what it should do on error - instead
>> arrange for state->link to be false.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>> ---
>> This is something I'd like to do to make it clearer what phylink
>> expects of this function, and that it shouldn't just read-back how
>> the MAC was configured.
>>
>> This version drops the deeper changes, concentrating just on the
>> phylink API rather than delving deeper into drivers, as I haven't
>> received any feedback on that patch.
>>
>> It would be nice to see all these drivers tested with this change.
>
> I'm tempted to just apply this, any objections?
>
Russell, which of this patch or: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1197425/
would you consider worthy of merging?
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists