[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZZRJLg6U0G5CNRQ0@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:34:38 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Yajun Deng <yajun.deng@...ux.dev>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com,
hkallweit1@...il.com, kabel@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: Cleanup struct mdio_driver_common
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 03:23:50PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote:
> The struct mdio_driver_common is a wrapper for driver-model structure,
> it contains device_driver and flags. There are only struct phy_driver
> and mdio_driver that use it. The flags is used to distinguish between
> struct phy_driver and mdio_driver.
>
> We can test that if probe of device_driver is equal to phy_probe. This
> way, the struct mdio_driver_common is no longer needed, and struct
> phy_driver and usb_mdio_driver will be consistent with other driver
> structs.
usb_mdio_driver?
I'm not sure why this consistency is even desired, the commit message
doesn't properly say _why_ this change is being proposed.
> +bool is_phy_driver(struct device_driver *driver)
> +{
> + return driver->probe == phy_probe;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(is_phy_driver);
Do we really need this exported? It doesn't seem like something anything
other than core MDIO/phylib code should know about, and all that becomes
a single module when building it in a modular way - phylib can't be a
separate module from mdio stuff.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists