From: René van Dorst <opensou...@vdorst.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2019 17:21:04 +0000
> Quoting Russell King - ARM Linux admin <li...@armlinux.org.uk>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a couple of minor points.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 09:25:47PM +0200, René van Dorst wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> +
>>> +static void mt7530_phylink_validate(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>>> + unsigned long *supported,
>>> + struct phylink_link_state *state)
>>> +{
>>> + __ETHTOOL_DECLARE_LINK_MODE_MASK(mask) = { 0, };
>>> +
>>> + switch (port) {
>>> + case 0: /* Internal phy */
>>> + case 1:
>>> + case 2:
>>> + case 3:
>>> + case 4:
>>> + if (state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA &&
>>> + state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII)
>>> + goto unsupported;
>>> + break;
>>> + /* case 5: Port 5 not supported! */
>>> + case 6: /* 1st cpu port */
>>> + if (state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA &&
>>> + state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_RGMII &&
>>> + state->interface != PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_TRGMII)
>>> + goto unsupported;
>>> + break;
>>> + default:
>>> + linkmode_zero(supported);
>>> + dev_err(ds->dev, "%s: unsupported port: %i\n", __func__, port);
>>
>> You could reorder this as:
>>
>> default:
>> dev_err(ds->dev, "%s: unsupported port: %i\n", __func__, port);
>> unsupported:
>> linkmode_zero(supported);
>>
>
> Hi David,
>
>> and save having the "unsupported" at the end of the function. Not
>> sure
>> what DaveM would think of it though.
>
> Can you give your option about this?
> So I know what to do with it and make a new series.
Russell's suggestion is fine.
