Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-33158-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:30:20 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: Tim Menninger <tmenninger@purestorage.com>, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
	davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Make *_c45 callbacks agree with
 phy_*_c45 callbacks
Message-ID: <1aab2398-2fe9-40b6-aa5b-34dde946668a@lunn.ch>
References: <20240116193542.711482-1-tmenninger@purestorage.com>
 <04d22048-737a-4281-a43f-b125ebe0c896@lunn.ch>
 <CAO-L_44YVi0HDk4gC9QijMZrYNGoKtfH7qsXOwtDwM4VrFRDHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <da87ce82-7337-4be4-a2af-bd2136626c56@lunn.ch>
 <CAO-L_46kqBrDdYP7p3He0cBF1OP7TJKnhYK1NR_gMZf2n_928A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240122123349.cxx2i2kzrhuqnasp@skbuf>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240122123349.cxx2i2kzrhuqnasp@skbuf>

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 02:33:49PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 05:51:13PM -0800, Tim Menninger wrote:
> > My impression is still that the read_c45 function should agree with the
> > phy_read_c45 function, but that isn't a hill I care to die on if you still
> > think otherwise. Thoughts?
> 
> FWIW, Tim's approach is consistent with what drivers/net/mdio/mdio-mux.c does.
> 
> 		if (parent_bus->read)
> 			cb->mii_bus->read = mdio_mux_read;
> 		if (parent_bus->write)
> 			cb->mii_bus->write = mdio_mux_write;
> 		if (parent_bus->read_c45)
> 			cb->mii_bus->read_c45 = mdio_mux_read_c45;
> 		if (parent_bus->write_c45)
> 			cb->mii_bus->write_c45 = mdio_mux_write_c45;
> 
> My only objection to his patch (apart from the commit message which
> should indeed be more detailed) is that I would have preferred the same
> "if" syntax rather than the use of a ternary operator with NULL.

I agree it could be fixed this way. But what i don't like about the
current code is how C22 and C45 do different things with error
codes. Since the current code is trying to use an error code, i would
prefer to fix that error code handling, rather than swap to a
different way to indicate its not supported.

	  Andrew