Hi Andrew,
Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> writes:
>> + for (dev = 0; dev < 32; ++dev) {
>> + for (port = 0; port < 16; ++port) {
>> + err = mv88e6xxx_pvt_map(chip, dev, port);
>> + if (err)
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>
> Hi Vivien
>
> How about adding MV88E6XXX_MAX_PVT_SWITCHES and MV88E6XXX_MAX_PVT_PORTS?
Sure.
>> +static int mv88e6xxx_g2_pvt_op(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int src_dev,
>> + int src_port, u16 op)
>> +{
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + /* 9-bit Cross-chip PVT pointer: with GLOBAL2_MISC_5_BIT_PORT cleared,
>> + * source device is 5-bit, source port is 4-bit.
>> + */
>> + op |= (src_dev & 0x1f) << 4;
>> + op |= (src_port & 0xf);
>
> So here, are you hard coding the knowledge that we passed false to
> mv88e6xxx_g2_misc_5_bit_port()? It kind of defeats the point of
> having the parameter. Maybe simplify the code and remove the
> parameter?
I usually like to have generic library functions, but you are correct
here, it gets inconsistent in this specific case. Unless we add a
dynamic PVT state to the chip, which is totally overkill by now.
I'll add mv88e6xxx_g2_misc_4_bit_port(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip).
Thanks,
Vivien
