On Oct. Friday 30 (44) 09:52 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:36:56PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> > All the mv88e6xxx drivers use the exact same code in their probe
> > function to lookup the switch name given its ID.
>
> I did consider this before. But they are not exactly the same, when
> you consider the masking of the lower nibble which some drivers do,
> and others not. But i see you handled that.
>
> > +char *mv88e6xxx_lookup_name(struct device *host_dev, int sw_addr,
> > + const struct mv88e6xxx_switch_id *table,
> > + unsigned int num)
> > +{
> > + struct mii_bus *bus = dsa_host_dev_to_mii_bus(host_dev);
> > + int i, ret;
> > +
> > + if (!bus)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + ret = __mv88e6xxx_reg_read(bus, sw_addr, REG_PORT(0), PORT_SWITCH_ID);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + /* Look up the exact switch ID */
> > + for (i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> > + if (table[i].id == ret) {
> > + pr_info("found switch 0x%x\n", ret);
>
> The old code did not print anything. The core DSA will print it later
> however, so we don't need to print it here.
Indeed, not very useful and redundant with the one from DSA...
>
> > + return table[i].name;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Look up only the product number */
> > + for (i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> > + if (table[i].id == (ret & PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_NUM_MASK)) {
> > + pr_warn("found switch 0x%x, maybe register rev %d?\n",
> > + ret, ret & PORT_SWITCH_ID_REV_MASK);
>
> I probably would not warn here. The old code did not.
The old code did not, but it silently fell back to checking only the
product number. I found this useful to motivate the user to define this
new revision. Does it makes sense, or should I remove the warning?
> Apart from these comments, a good change.
Thanks!
-v
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
