From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C3AC433DF for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 15:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE96206F1 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 15:30:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="ho35PXiI" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726823AbgETPaI (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2020 11:30:08 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:41488 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726436AbgETPaH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2020 11:30:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=P9xFjvln5lpqcUDkT0S9S25W/sDf22BHHJpouhC0kjw=; b=ho35PXiIJo7px+vRDFJbiNSyPG g460BkSQ51Cj7WYav6WFv2A6Z/8Z6e/HXCCCqrPp6Lqq4QixTimXy/vAzsuR5xrDCkrSn6/N8G6Lt Dr/g/SuYro3sJ4wi3dlL55BwRqF7v9IuM2PQkdGvp09q1dYPKwsi6zLdGt68nzsXDZPM=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1jbQfR-002onb-TD; Wed, 20 May 2020 17:30:01 +0200 Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 17:30:01 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Oleksij Rempel Cc: Michal Kubecek , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Marek Vasut , Florian Fainelli , Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , mkl@pengutronix.de, kernel@pengutronix.de, David Jander , Jakub Kicinski , Christian Herber , "David S. Miller" , Heiner Kallweit Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ethtool: provide UAPI for PHY Signal Quality Index (SQI) Message-ID: <20200520153001.GG652285@lunn.ch> References: <20200520062915.29493-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de> <20200520062915.29493-2-o.rempel@pengutronix.de> <20200520144544.GB8771@lion.mk-sys.cz> <20200520150711.rj4b22g3zhzej2aw@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200520150711.rj4b22g3zhzej2aw@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > I'm not sure if it's a good idea to define two separate callbacks. It > > means adding two pointers instead of one (for every instance of the > > structure, not only those implementing them), doing two calls, running > > the same checks twice, locking twice, checking the result twice. > > > > Also, passing a structure pointer would mean less code changed if we > > decide to add more related state values later. > > > > What do you think? > > > > If you don't agree, I have no objections so > > > > Reviewed-by: Michal Kubecek > > I have no strong opinion on it. Should I rework it? It is an internal API, so we can change it any time we want. I did wonder if MAX should just be a static value. It seems odd it would change at run time. But we can re-evaulate this once we got some more users. Andrew