[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241107190355.7daafc3d@fedora.home>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 19:03:55 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Heiner
Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Herve Codina
<herve.codina@...tlin.com>, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/7] net: freescale: ucc_geth: split
adjust_link for phylink conversion
Hello Russell,
On Thu, 7 Nov 2024 17:51:05 +0000
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > Preparing the phylink conversion, split the adjust_link callbaclk, by
> > clearly separating the mac configuration, link_up and link_down phases.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what the point of this patch is, given that in
> patch 7, all this code gets deleted, or maybe moved?
>
> If it's moved, it may be better in patch 7 to ensure that doesn't
> happen, and move it in a separate patch - right now patch 7 is horrible
> to review as there's no way to see what the changes are in these
> link_up()/link_down() functions.
I agree that it's hard to review indeed... I followed the documented
approach of splitting-up the adjust_link callback then performing the
conversion, but it's true that it doesn't really make patch 7 more
readable.
I can try to move things around and make patch 7 a bit more
straightforward.
Thanks,
Maxime
Powered by blists - more mailing lists