From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: lookup switch name
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:52:58 +0100
Message-ID: <20151030205258.GC10053@lunn.ch>
References: <1446237416-5447-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel@savoirfairelinux.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1446237416-5447-1-git-send-email-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 04:36:56PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> All the mv88e6xxx drivers use the exact same code in their probe
> function to lookup the switch name given its ID.

I did consider this before. But they are not exactly the same, when
you consider the masking of the lower nibble which some drivers do,
and others not. But i see you handled that.

> +char *mv88e6xxx_lookup_name(struct device *host_dev, int sw_addr,
> +			    const struct mv88e6xxx_switch_id *table,
> +			    unsigned int num)
> +{
> +	struct mii_bus *bus = dsa_host_dev_to_mii_bus(host_dev);
> +	int i, ret;
> +
> +	if (!bus)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	ret = __mv88e6xxx_reg_read(bus, sw_addr, REG_PORT(0), PORT_SWITCH_ID);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		return NULL;
> +
> +	/* Look up the exact switch ID */
> +	for (i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> +		if (table[i].id == ret) {
> +			pr_info("found switch 0x%x\n", ret);

The old code did not print anything. The core DSA will print it later
however, so we don't need to print it here.

> +			return table[i].name;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Look up only the product number */
> +	for (i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
> +		if (table[i].id == (ret & PORT_SWITCH_ID_PROD_NUM_MASK)) {
> +			pr_warn("found switch 0x%x, maybe register rev %d?\n",
> +				ret, ret & PORT_SWITCH_ID_REV_MASK);

I probably would not warn here. The old code did not.


Apart from these comments, a good change.

      Andrew