[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <da3937bc-8ea7-4f44-85d7-ed452d93ba9b@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 14:52:26 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Radu Pirea (OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>
Cc: hkallweit1@...il.com, linux@...linux.org.uk, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: phy: introduce phy_reg_field interface
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 03:32:59PM +0300, Radu Pirea (OSS) wrote:
> Some PHYs can be heavily modified between revisions, and the addresses of
> the registers are changed and the register fields are moved from one
> register to another.
>
> To integrate more PHYs in the same driver with the same register fields,
> but these register fields were located in different registers at
> different offsets, I introduced the phy_reg_fied structure.
>
> phy_reg_fied structure abstracts the register fields differences.
Hi Radu
You should always include a user of a new API. It makes it easier to
understand and review if you see both sides of an API.
Please turn this into a patchset, and make use of this new functions
in a driver.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists