Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 8 May 2019 13:47:15 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
Cc:     "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: introduce support for two
 chips using direct smi addressing
Message-ID: <20190508114715.GB30557@lunn.ch>
References: <20190501193126.19196-1-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
 <20190501193126.19196-2-rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>
 <20190501201919.GC19809@lunn.ch>
 <f5924091-352c-c14a-f959-6bb8a32746e3@prevas.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f5924091-352c-c14a-f959-6bb8a32746e3@prevas.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Hi Rasmus
> > 
> > This works, but i think i prefer adding mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_chip_write,
> > mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_chip_read, and create a
> > mv88e6xxx_smi_single_chip_ops.
> 
> Hi Andrew
> 
> Now that Vivien's "net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: refine SMI support" is in
> master, do you still prefer introducing a third bus_ops structure
> (mv88e6xxx_smi_dual_direct_ops ?), or would the approach of adding
> chip->sw_addr in the smi_direct_{read/write} functions be ok (which
> would then require changing the indirect callers to pass 0 instead of
> chip->swaddr).

Hi Rasmus

I would still prefer a new bus_ops.

Thanks
	Andrew