[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZByUvVGRhpFUYrVq@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 20:04:45 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 3/7] net: dsa: use fwnode_get_phy_mode() to
get phy interface mode
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:53:46PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:00:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:49:01PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > Let's start here. We pass this fwnode to fwnode_get_phy_mode():
> > >
> > > include/linux/property.h:int fwnode_get_phy_mode(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode);
> > >
> > > Does fwnode_get_phy_mode() alter the contents of the fwnode? Probably
> > > not, but it doesn't take a const pointer. Therefore, to declare my
> > > fwnode as const, I'd need to cast the const-ness away before calling
> > > this.
> >
> > So, fix the fwnode_get_phy_mode(). Is it a problem?
> >
> > > Then there's phylink_create(). Same problem.
> >
> > So, fix that. Is it a problem?
>
> To do both of these creates a five patch series, because there are so
> many things that need to be constified:
>
> fwnode_get_phy_mode() is the trivial one.
>
> sfp_bus_find_fwnode(), and the sfp-bus internal fwnode uses.
>
> fwnode_get_phy_node().
>
> phylink_create(), phylink_parse_fixedlink(), phylink_parse_mode(),
> phylink_fwnode_phy_connect().
>
> Hopefully nothing breaks as a result of changing all those - but that
> can hardly be "tacked" on to the start of my series as a trivial
> change - and clearly such a change should _not_ be part of this
> series.
Thank you for doing that!
> Those five patches do not include moving fwnode_get_phy_mode(), whose
> location remains undecided.
No problem, we like iterative work.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists