On 2/4/25 7:17 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
On 27/01/2025 13:28, Paul Barker wrote:
On 27/01/2025 11:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 1/27/25 11:32 AM, Paul Barker wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 25/01/2025 12:56, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 1/21/25 3:38 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
On 18/01/2025 06:53, Marek Vasut wrote:
Introduce mdio_init() split off from mdio_alloc(), which is used
to initialize already allocated struct mii_dev.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@mailbox.org>
Replying here for the whole patch series...
I like where we get to at the end of this series, but I don't like the
intermediate state where the bb_miiphy_buses arrays still exist but are
unused. I also think we should introduce a new ops struct so we're not
duplicating function pointers in each instance of struct bb_miiphy_bus.
I would prefer the following order of changes, let me know if you think
this would be cleaner:
1) Introduce mdio_init().
2) Add mii member to struct bb_miiphy_bus.
3) Modify each driver to use the mii member of the appropriate struct
bb_miiphy_bus instance, calling mdio_init() instead of mdio_alloc().
At this point we're still using the instances in the statically
allocated bb_miiphy_buses array.
Those instances might be rodata , so using them as read-write storage
does not necessarily work , does it ?
None of the instances in the current U-Boot code are marked as const,
and the name field is already modified at runtime by each driver. So I
don't think we need to worry about them being rodata.
Can the compiler not decide to place the structure into rodata if it is
never written ?
To my understanding the compiler cannot place anything in a different
section such as rodata unless this is explicitly requested with an
attribute (i.e. `__attribute__(( section(".rodata") ))` or a macro call
which resolves to this).
Hi Marek,
To follow up after our brief converstation at FOSDEM:
The important thing is where we arrive at the end of this series, the
duplication we have in the intermediate state is unfortunate but it
shouldn't be a blocker. If no one else is complaining, and it'd be time
consuming to re-order and re-factor things, then please ignore my
comments above and let's move ahead with your current proposal. I should
have time this week to review the patches in more detail.
I did have one more look at this, but after a bit, I found out that this
does not make the series easier, rather the opposite. Before 3) the
driver does a mix of static and dynamic allocation of mdio and mii_phy
structures , 3) would move the driver to static only allocation and
remove the existing dynamic allocation, 11) would re-add the dynamic
allocation . I'll be sending slightly reordered V2 now.
