[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <656f37a6.5d0a0220.96144.356f@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 15:45:55 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
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>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
David Epping <david.epping@...singlinkelectronics.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Harini Katakam <harini.katakam@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v3 3/3] net: phy: add support for PHY package
MMD read/write
On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 03:37:55AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 14:36:30 +0100 Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * phy_package_write_mmd - Convenience function for writing a register
> > > + * on an MMD on a given PHY using the PHY package base addr, added of
> > > + * the addr_offset value.
> > > + * @phydev: The phy_device struct
> > > + * @addr_offset: The offset to be added to PHY package base_addr
> > > + * @devad: The MMD to read from
> > > + * @regnum: The register on the MMD to read
> > > + * @val: value to write to @regnum
> > > + *
> > > + * Same rules as for phy_write();
> > > + *
> > > + * NOTE: It's assumed that the entire PHY package is either C22 or C45.
> > > + */
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * phy_package_write_mmd - Convenience function for writing a register
> > > + * on an MMD on a given PHY using the PHY package base addr, added of
> > > + * the addr_offset value.
> > > + */
> > > +int phy_package_write_mmd(struct phy_device *phydev,
> > > + unsigned int addr_offset, int devad,
> > > + u32 regnum, u16 val);
> >
> > Hm, I see there's some precedent here already for this duplicated
> > semi-kdoc. It seems a bit unusual. If I was looking for kdoc and
> > found the header one I'd probably not look at the source file at all.
> >
> > Andrew, WDYT?
>
> I tend to agree. These functions should be documented once in kdoc,
> and only once. I don't really care if its in the header, or the C
> code, but not both.
>
Ok just to make sure, I should keep the kdoc in the .c and drop them in
.h ? (or should I move the more complete kdoc in .c to .h and remove
kdoc in .c?)
I followed the pattern for the other API but I get they are very old
code.
--
Ansuel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists