Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 16:56:20 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Ante Knezic <ante.knezic@helmholz.de>
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: dont use generic selftest strings for
 custom selftests
Message-ID: <20231214145620.lfsft2c3x5fjz6ev@skbuf>
References: <20231214142511.rjbr2a726vlr57v4@skbuf>
 <20231214144751.1507-1-ante.knezic@helmholz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231214144751.1507-1-ante.knezic@helmholz.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 03:47:51PM +0100, Ante Knezic wrote:
> Indeed I do have a custom implementation for the mv88e6xxx chip, but its not
> come to state to be posted because of test/chip specifics.
> 
> > I didn't notice when the selftest support was added that there is no
> > implementation in DSA drivers of custom ds->ops->self_test(). Adding
> > interfaces with no users is frowned upon, precisely because it doesn't
> > show the big picture.
> 
> I was not aware of this, I apologize. If this is the case, perhaps this patch
> should wait for the first custom self test implementation and be reposted as
> a part of bigger series.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ante
> 

I agree this should be resubmitted with a user of the API. Looking
forward to seeing it. Thanks for the understanding.

The only thing I would want to comment on the patch as it is is to avoid
the pattern of:

	if (a)
		return x;
	else
		return y;

and formulate it as:

	if (a)
		return x;

	return y;

instead. The "else" is redundant for an "if" that ends with a return statement.

---
pw-bot: changes-requested