Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:57:57 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net 4/7] net: dsa: mt7530: set both CPU port interfaces to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 27.03.2023 22:12, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 05:08:15PM +0300, arinc9.unal@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >> >> Set interfaces of both CPU ports to PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA. Either phylink >> or mt7530_setup_port5() on mt7530_setup() will handle the rest. >> >> This is already being done for port 6, do it for port 5 as well. >> >> Fixes: 38f790a80560 ("net: dsa: mt7530: Add support for port 5") > > This is getting comical.. I think I'm putting too much energy in > trying to understand the hidden meaning of this patch set. > > In include/linux/phy.h we have: > > typedef enum { > PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA, > > In lack of other initializer, the first element of an enum gets the > value 0 in C. > > Then, "priv" is allocated by this driver with devm_kzalloc(), which > means that its entire memory is zero-filled. So priv->p5_interface and > priv->p6_interface are already set to 0, or PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA. > > There is no code path between the devm_kzalloc() and the position in > mt7530_setup() that would change the value of priv->p5_interface or > priv->p6_interface from their value of 0 (PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA). > For example, mt753x_phylink_mac_config() can only be called from > phylink, after dsa_port_phylink_create() was called. But > dsa_port_phylink_create() comes later than ds->ops->setup() - one comes > from dsa_tree_setup_ports(), and the other from dsa_tree_setup_switches(). > > The movement of the priv->p6_interface assignment with a few lines > earlier does not change anything relative to the other call sites which > assign different values to priv->p6_interface, so there isn't any > functional change there, either. > > So this patch is putting 0 into a variable containing 0, and claiming, > through the presence of the Fixes: tag and the submission to the "net" > tree, that it is a bug fix which should be backported to "stable". > > Can it be that you are abusing the meaning of a "bug fix", and that I'm > trying too hard to take this patch set seriously?
I don't appreciate your consistent use of the word "abuse" on my patches. I'm by no means a senior C programmer. I'm doing my best to correct the driver.
Thank you for explaining the process of phylink with DSA, I will adjust my patches accordingly.
I suggest you don't take my patches seriously for a while, until I know better.
Arınç
| |