Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 17:30:01 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, mkl@pengutronix.de,
        kernel@pengutronix.de, David Jander <david@protonic.nl>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Christian Herber <christian.herber@nxp.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY Signal
 Quality Index (SQI)
Message-ID: <20200520153001.GG652285@lunn.ch>
References: <20200520062915.29493-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20200520062915.29493-2-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20200520144544.GB8771@lion.mk-sys.cz>
 <20200520150711.rj4b22g3zhzej2aw@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200520150711.rj4b22g3zhzej2aw@pengutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to define two separate callbacks. It
> > means adding two pointers instead of one (for every instance of the
> > structure, not only those implementing them), doing two calls, running
> > the same checks twice, locking twice, checking the result twice.
> > 
> > Also, passing a structure pointer would mean less code changed if we
> > decide to add more related state values later.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > If you don't agree, I have no objections so
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@suse.cz>
> 
> I have no strong opinion on it. Should I rework it?

It is an internal API, so we can change it any time we want.

I did wonder if MAX should just be a static value. It seems odd it
would change at run time. But we can re-evaulate this once we got some
more users.

     Andrew