On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 06:51:06AM +0200, Wei Fang wrote: > > I don't understand the need for si->ops->setup_cbdr() and > > si->ops->teardown_cbdr()? > > Doesn't every call site know which kind of SI it is dealing with, and thus > > it can > > appropriately call the direct symbol? > > - the v1 PSI and the VSI call enetc_setup_cbdr() and enetc_teardown_cbdr() > > - the v4 PSI calls enetc4_setup_cbdr() and enetc4_teardown_cbdr() > > Yes, for PSI we can use directly call these functions because they are > different > drivers, but for VSI, v1 and v4 will use the same driver. I just want the PSI > and > VSI to be consistent. If you don't like this, I can remove these interfaces > from > the patch set, and add vf_setup_cbdr and vf_teardown_cbdr in the future when > I add the VF support for ENETC v4.
It's not that I don't like them, the point is rather simple: as far as this patch set is concerned, converting direct function calls to indirect ones is an unfinished idea. It needs to be evaluated in full context, which is not present here - as you say, v4 VSIs need to be further modified to call a different set of operations - but right now, they call a single set of CBDR functions. Changes which require subsequent patch sets in order to make any sense at all are discouraged. Given the fact that the PSI code paths still don't benefit from an indirect function call in any way, I would in principle recommend to keep calling their CBDR methods directly. For VSIs I don't know which is preferable (if-else vs function pointer), I need to see that code first.
