From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754047AbbL2XcP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:32:15 -0500
Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([95.129.55.99]:37515 "EHLO gloria.sntech.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753493AbbL2XcN (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:32:13 -0500
From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, keescook@google.com,
        leozwang@google.comi, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 3/4] net: ethernet: arc: Add support emac for RK3036
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:32:04 +0100
Message-ID: <10754282.l0GYzq0NWr@diego>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.2.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.14.14; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <FFCE9129-357E-4643-A350-9927A5AD5720@gmail.com>
References: <1451287341-16453-1-git-send-email-zhengxing@rock-chips.com> <1451287341-16453-4-git-send-email-zhengxing@rock-chips.com> <FFCE9129-357E-4643-A350-9927A5AD5720@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Am Dienstag, 29. Dezember 2015, 14:59:59 schrieb Florian Fainelli:
> On December 27, 2015 11:22:20 PM PST, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> 
wrote:
> >The RK3036's GRFs offset are different with RK3066/RK3188, and need to
> >set
> >mac TX/RX clock before probe emac.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
> >---
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > };
> > 
> > static const struct of_device_id emac_rockchip_dt_ids[] = {
> >
> >-	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data =
> >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] },
> >-	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data =
> >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] },
> >+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3036-emac", .data =
> >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[0] },
> >+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3066-emac", .data =
> >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[1] },
> >+	{ .compatible = "rockchip,rk3188-emac", .data =
> >&emac_rockchip_dt_data[2] },
> >
> > 	{ /* Sentinel */ }
> 
> Food for thought, you might want to use an enum here to index
> emac_rockchip_dt_data which would be less error prone if you add/remove
> entries in this structure.

Or just have the structs separately and not in array-form at all, aka
rk3066_emac_dt_data, rk3036_emac_dt_data.

I don't think the original array really improves anything.