lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drivers: ptp: Include new header file in ptp_pch.c
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 05:43:59PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:58:40 +0100
>
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:14:15AM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote:
> >> ---
> >> drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe.h | 9 ---------
> >> .../net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe/pch_gbe_main.c | 1 +
> >> drivers/ptp/ptp_pch.c | 1 +
> >> include/linux/ptp_pch.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >> 4 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 include/linux/ptp_pch.h
> >
> > Instead of adding a random driver header into include/linux, I would
> > prefer that you just move the ptp_pch.c from drivers/ptp to
> > drivers/net/ethernet/oki-semi/pch_gbe. Then you can just include
> > pch_gbe.h directly.
>
> I think this begs an even more fundamental question, why isn't the PTP
> driver abstraction providing the necessary methods and interfaces so
> that pch_gbe doesn't have to call into the ptp_pch.c code directly?
>
> Moving ptp_pch.c elsehwere is not desirable, it's a PTP driver so
> it belongs under drivers/ptp.

For the moment, at least, would it be reasonable to have a proper header
for these functions since pch_gbe is currently calling them? Making
that driver *not* call those functions might well be a sensible cleanup,
but does fixing this issue need to wait for that cleanup to happen?

- Josh Triplett


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-19 01:01    [W:0.068 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site