Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751390AbdIRWmn (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:42:43 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:46748 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750791AbdIRWmm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:42:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 00:42:36 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Tristram.Ha@microchip.com Cc: muvarov@gmail.com, pavel@ucw.cz, nathan.leigh.conrad@gmail.com, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Woojung.Huh@microchip.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/6] Modify tag_ksz.c to support other KSZ switch drivers Message-ID: <20170918224236.GB29615@lunn.ch> References: <93AF473E2DA327428DE3D46B72B1E9FD41121901@CHN-SV-EXMX02.mchp-main.com> <93AF473E2DA327428DE3D46B72B1E9FD41121A22@CHN-SV-EXMX02.mchp-main.com> <20170907214834.GT11248@lunn.ch> <93AF473E2DA327428DE3D46B72B1E9FD41124D2E@CHN-SV-EXMX02.mchp-main.com> <20170918195708.GE15606@lunn.ch> <93AF473E2DA327428DE3D46B72B1E9FD41124D7C@CHN-SV-EXMX02.mchp-main.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <93AF473E2DA327428DE3D46B72B1E9FD41124D7C@CHN-SV-EXMX02.mchp-main.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1722 Lines: 65 On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:55:17PM +0000, Tristram.Ha@microchip.com wrote: > > > > This is ugly. We have a clean separation between a switch driver and a > > > > tag driver. Here you are mixing them together. Don't. Look at the > > > > mailing lists for what Florian and I suggested to Pavel. It will also > > > > solve your include file issue above. > > > > > > It seems to me all tag_*.c are hard-coded. They do not have access to > > > the switch device and just use the bit definitions defined in the top to > > > do the job. > > > > > > This creates a problem for all KSZ switch devices as they have different > > > tail tag formats and lengths. There will be potentially 4 additional > > > DSA_TAG_PROT_KSZ* just to handle them. Extra files will be added > > > with about the same code. > > > > Hi Tristram > > > > Think about factoring out the common code into a shared functions. > > > > I am a little unsure what you have in mind. Can you elaborate? You say you need 4 DSA_TAG_PROT_KSZ. I guess the code is nearly identical in them all? If i remember correctly, the two tag bytes are the other way around? static int ksz8k_xmit( *skb, struct net_device *dev) { uint8* tag; tag = ksz_xmit(skb, dev) if (!tag) return NULL; tag[0] = 1 << p->dp->index; tag[1] = 0; return skb; } static int ksz9k_xmit( *skb, struct net_device *dev) { uint8* tag; tag = ksz_xmit(skb, dev) if (!tag) return NULL; tag[0] = 0; tag[1] = 1 << p->dp->index; return skb; } const struct dsa_device_ops ksz8k_netdev_ops = { .xmit = ksz8k_xmit, .rcv = ksz8k_rcv, }; const struct dsa_device_ops ksz9k_netdev_ops = { .xmit = ksz9k_xmit, .rcv = ksz9k_rcv, }; Andrew