[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220911135320.h5nl75ajcwjiulf6@skbuf>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 16:53:20 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Mattias Forsblad <mattias.forsblad@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 4/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxxx: Add RMU
functionality.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 08:37:17AM +0200, Mattias Forsblad wrote:
> >> + chip->rmu.rmu_ops->get_rmon = mv88e6xxx_rmu_stats_get;
> >> +
> >> + if (chip->info->ops->rmu_disable)
> >> + return chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(chip);
> >
> > Why is a setup function calling disable?
>
> So Vladimir Oltean commented before:
> "I think it's very important for the RMU to still start as disabled.
> You enable it dynamically when the master goes up."
This, plus the fact that mv88e6xxx_rmu_setup() already exists in the
tree, and calls chip->info->ops->rmu_disable(). It seems like that
doesn't need to change. Mattias is moving it around, and makes it seem
as if something is being changed. Maybe simple code movement could be
split into a separate change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists