Re: [net-next PATCH v10 7/7] rust: net::phy sync with match_phy_device C changes

["Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org>]

On Mon May 19, 2025 at 2:44 PM CEST, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2025 14:32:44 +0200
> "Benno Lossin" <lossin@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>> The other use case, as mentioned above, is when using the generic helper
>>>>> function inside match_phy_device() callback. For example, the 4th
>>>>> patch in this patchset adds genphy_match_phy_device():
>>>>>
>>>>> int genphy_match_phy_device(struct phy_device *phydev,
>>>>>                            const struct phy_driver *phydrv)
>>>>>
>>>>> We could add a wrapper for this function as phy::Device's method like
>>>>>
>>>>> impl Device {
>>>>>     ...
>>>>>     pub fn genphy_match_phy_device(&self, drv: &phy::DriverVTable) -> i32 
>>>> 
>>>> Not sure why this returns an `i32`, but we probably could have such a
>>>
>>> Maybe a bool would be more appropriate here because the C's comment
>>> says:
>>>
>>> Return: 1 if the PHY device matches the driver, 0 otherwise.
>>>
>>>> function as well (though I wouldn't use the vtable for that).
>>>
>>> What would you use instead?
>> 
>> The concept that I sketched above:
>> 
>>     impl Device {
>>         fn genphy_match_phy_device<T: Driver>(&self) -> bool {
>>             self.phy_id() == T::PHY_DEVICE_ID.id
>>         }
>>     }
>
> I think there might be a misunderstanding.
>
> Rust's genphy_match_phy_device() is supposed to be a wrapper for C's
> genphy_match_phy_device():
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250517201353.5137-5-ansuelsmth@gmail.com/

Oh yeah you're right. But using `DriverVTable` for that doesn't sound
nice...

---
Cheers,
Benno