On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 02:31:31PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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.
Not fpr me at least - but I just review the patch out of context.
If it is sizeof(u32) why not write so?
>
> >> 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?
So it is clear they are tuneing parameters.
>
> Besides, that's pre-existing, and has nothing to do with this patch.
>
OK.
> >>--- 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.
OK - had not seen it (or forgot).
>
> >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...
It was only the fec_t => struct fec change I had in mind.
Sam
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
