netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] net: dsa: ocelot: felix: add support for VSC75XX control over SPI

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: <20210815232753.GA3526284@euler>
Date:   Sun, 15 Aug 2021 16:27:53 -0700
From:   Colin Foster <colin.foster@...advantage.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        claudiu.manoil@....com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] net: dsa: ocelot: felix: add
 support for VSC75XX control over SPI

On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:14:54AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > index a84129d18007..d0b3f6be360f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c
> > @@ -1046,7 +1046,7 @@ static int vsc9959_mdio_bus_alloc(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> >  	int rc;
> >  
> >  	felix->pcs = devm_kcalloc(dev, felix->info->num_ports,
> > -				  sizeof(struct lynx_pcs *),
> > +				  sizeof(struct phylink_pcs *),
> >  				  GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!felix->pcs) {
> >  		dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate array for PCS PHYs\n");
> > @@ -1095,8 +1095,8 @@ static int vsc9959_mdio_bus_alloc(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> >  
> >  	for (port = 0; port < felix->info->num_ports; port++) {
> >  		struct ocelot_port *ocelot_port = ocelot->ports[port];
> > +		struct phylink_pcs *phylink;
> >  		struct mdio_device *pcs;
> > -		struct lynx_pcs *lynx;
> 
> Normally, "phylink" is used to refer to the main phylink data
> structure, so I'm not too thrilled to see it getting re-used for the
> PCS. However, as you have a variable called "pcs" already, I suppose
> you don't have much choice.
> 
> That said, it would be nice to have consistent naming through at
> least a single file, and you do have "pcs" below to refer to this
> same thing.
> 
> Maybe using plpcs or ppcs would suffice? Or maybe use the "long name"
> of phylink_pcs ?

I noticed this as well. It seems to me like the mdio_device variable
name of pcs is misleading, and perhaps should be "mdio" and phylink_pcs
should be pcs, or any of the alternatives you suggested.

> 
> >  
> >  		if (dsa_is_unused_port(felix->ds, port))
> >  			continue;
> > @@ -1108,13 +1108,13 @@ static int vsc9959_mdio_bus_alloc(struct ocelot *ocelot)
> >  		if (IS_ERR(pcs))
> >  			continue;
> >  
> > -		lynx = lynx_pcs_create(pcs);
> > +		phylink = lynx_pcs_create(pcs);
> >  		if (!lynx) {
> 
> I think you want to change this test.

Yes, I caught these shortly after submitting it. Fixed.