On Sun, 2016-05-08 at 00:56 +0200, Philippe Reynes wrote:
> On 07/05/16 13:59, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2016-05-07 at 01:18 +0200, Philippe Reynes wrote:
> > >
> > > The callback {get|set}_link_ksettings are often defined
> > > in a very close way. There are mainly two differences in
> > > those callback:
> > > - the name of the netdev private structure
> > > - the name of the struct phydev in the private structure
> > >
> > > We add two defines ethtool_phy_{get|set}_link_ksettings
> > > to avoid writing severals times almost the same function.
> > [...]
> >
> > I don't think there's no need to access a private structure, as there's
> > a phydev pointer in struct net_device. If some drivers don't maintain
> > that pointer, they should be changed to do so. Then they can
> > use generic implementations of {get,set}_link_ksettings provided by
> > phylib.
> If we could use the phydev in the struct net_device, we could write a
> generic function for {get|set}_link_ksettings. It's a good idea.
>
> But I've quickly looked and a lot of ethernet driver use the private
> structure to store the phydev. If the ethernet driver may use the
> struct net_device for phydev, do you know why so many drivers use
> the private structure ?
Maybe just because no-one bothered to update them after it was added to
net_device.
Ben.
> If everybody agree, I can send a new version with a generic
> {get|set}_link_ksettings
> and a update of fec to use the phydev store in the structure net_device.
--
Ben Hutchings
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
