Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers/net: remove use of non-standard array range initialization

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

16/06/2025 09:37, David Marchand:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:18 PM Andre Muezerie
> <andremue@linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c b/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c
> > index 5a69b3e094..c9bf5fc6ad 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c
> > @@ -162,7 +162,13 @@ static void
> >  rtl_release_phy_mcu_patch_key_lock(struct rtl_hw *hw)
> >  {
> >         switch (hw->mcfg) {
> > -       case CFG_METHOD_48 ... CFG_METHOD_53:
> > +       /* CFG_METHOD_48 ... CFG_METHOD_53 */
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_48:
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_49:
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_50:
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_51:
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_52:
> > +       case CFG_METHOD_53:
> >                 rtl_mdio_direct_write_phy_ocp(hw, 0xA436, 0x0000);
> >                 rtl_mdio_direct_write_phy_ocp(hw, 0xA438, 0x0000);
> >                 rtl_clear_eth_phy_ocp_bit(hw, 0xB82E, BIT_0);
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion against this change.
> The driver maintainer already acked this change.
> 
> So just some comment, on the form.
> switch() here does not seem well suited since this driver code is
> validating a range of values.
> if (hw->mcfg >= CFG_METHOD_48 && hw->mcfg <= CFG_METHOD_53) seems more
> robust and is easier to read.

Yes I agree with David.
Please could you fix this code to have simpler code with some "if"?