[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <62d5a454.1c69fb81.18bd7.3d97@mx.google.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:02:57 +0200
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/4] net: dsa: qca8k: code split for qca8k
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 09:15:59PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 07:23:35PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Ok, so I have to keep the qca8k special function. Is it a problem if I
> > keep the function and than later make the conversion when we have the
> > regmap dependency merged?
>
> You mean to ask whether there's any problem if the common qca8k_fdb_read()
> calls the specific qca8k_bulk_read as opposed to regmap_bulk_read()?
>
> Well, no, considering that you don't yet support the switch with the
> MMIO regmap, the common code is still "common" for the single switch
> that the driver supports. You should be able to continue making progress
> with qca8k_bulk_read() being called from common code (as long as you
> leave a TODO comment or something, that it doesn't really belong there).
Ok I will leave a TODO comment and switch to the new implemenation when
the regmap implementation will be available. Thanks for the
clarification on how to proceed.
--
Ansuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists