netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v2 3/4] net: phy: restructure __phy_write/read

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: <6565d8d6.5d0a0220.5f8f1.b9d7@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2023 13:11:00 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	David Epping <david.epping@...singlinkelectronics.com>,
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
	Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@....com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v2 3/4] net: phy: restructure
 __phy_write/read_mmd to helper and phydev user

On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 01:46:10AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 12:51:40AM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > Restructure phy_write_mmd and phy_read_mmd to implement generic helper
> > for direct mdiobus access for mmd and use these helper for phydev user.
> > 
> > This is needed in preparation of PHY package API that requires generic
> > access to the mdiobus and are deatched from phydev struct but instead
> > access them based on PHY package base_addr and offsets.
> 
> Why is this all going into the header file?
>

Was following the pattern done by phy_package_read/write.

Considering those API are not single function call... I wonder if those
should be moved in phy_core.c instead of static inline them in the
header.

What do you think?

-- 
	Ansuel