Hi Marek,
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 22:52:16 +0200, Marek Behun <marek.be...@nic.cz> wrote:
> > There's something I'm having trouble to follow here. This series keeps
> > adding and modifying its own code. Wouldn't it be simpler for everyone
> > if you directly implement the final mv88e6xxx_port_hidden_{read,write}
> > functions taking this block argument, and update the code to switch to it?
>
> I wanted the commits to be atomic, in the sense that one commit does
> not do three different things at once. Renaming macros is cosmetic
> change, and moving functions to another file is a not a semantic
> change, while adding additional argument to functions is a semantic
> change. I can of course do all in one patch, but I though it would be
> better not to.
You add code, move it, rename it, then change it. It is hard to follow and
read, especially in a series of 9 patches.
I think you could do it the other way around. For example implement the
.serdes_get_lane operation, its users, the mv88e6xxx_port_hidden_* API, its
users, remove or convert old code, etc. Atomicity has nothing to do with it.
> > While at it, I don't really mind the "hidden" name, but is this the name
> > used in the documentation, if any?
>
> Yes, the registers are indeed named Hidden Registers in documentation.
OK good to know, port_hidden_ makes sense indeed then.
Thanks,
Vivien
