Sam Ravnborg wrote:
+ data = of_get_property(ofdev->node, "fsl,align-tx-packets", &len);
+ if (data && len == 4)
+ fpi->align_tx_packets = *data;
+
Where did "4" come from. USe a define with a desriptive name.
It's sizeof(u32), i.e. one device tree cell. This is fairly normal.
fpi->rx_ring = 32;
fpi->tx_ring = 32;
Same for "32"
fpi->rx_copybreak = 240;
Same for "240".
They're arbitrary tuning parameters. How is a #define any more
descriptive than the field name?
Besides, that's pre-existing, and has nothing to do with this patch.
--- a/drivers/net/fs_enet/fs_enet.h
+++ b/drivers/net/fs_enet/fs_enet.h
@@ -10,12 +10,17 @@
#include <linux/fs_enet_pd.h>
#include <asm/fs_pd.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_FS_ENET_MPC5121_FEC
+#include "fec_mpc5121.h"
+#endif
Which is this include ifdeffed - looks like some wrong concept.
This has already been discussed. There are two similar but different
ethernet controllers that are being targeted, and the chips they are a
part of (8xx and 512x) are already mutually exclusive with respect to
multiplatform kernels due to core differences.
The amount of ifdef introduced looks bad..
Yes, it's bad -- but it's a matter of which is the lesser evil, a few
ifdefs or large amounts of mostly duplicated code.
And try to run the patch through scripts/checkpatch.pl
And try to split it up a bit.
Other than the fec_t thing, I don't see any needed splitting...
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
