Re: [PATCH net-next v3 00/10] net: dsa: Support for pdata in dsa2

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 09:40:24AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 01/15/2017 03:08 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:47:03PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> This is not exactly new, and was sent before, although back then, I did not
> >> have an user of the pre-declared MDIO board information, but now we do. Note
> >> that I have additional changes queued up to have b53 register platform data for
> >> MIPS bcm47xx and bcm63xx.
> >>
> >> Yes I know that we should have the Orion platforms eventually be converted to
> >> Device Tree, but until that happens, I don't want any remaining users of the
> >> old "dsa" platform device (hence the previous DTS submissions for ARM/mvebu)
> >> and, there will be platforms out there that most likely won't never see DT
> >> coming their way (BCM47xx is almost 100% sure, BCM63xx maybe not in a distant
> >> future).
> >>
> >> We would probably want the whole series to be merged via David Miller's tree
> >> to simplify things.
> >>
> >> Greg, can you Ack/Nack patch 5 since it touched the core LDD?
> > 
> > I've NAKed them for now, you need to describe what you are trying to do
> > here, as it doesn't make any sense to me at the moment.
> 
> For one, this is moving *existing* code from net/dsa/dsa.c part into the
> device core for device_find_class() and part into the network device
> core for dev_to_net_device(). Patch 8 is where this actually gets used.
> See my individual replies for more details.
> 
> Even though the existing code is there in net/dsa/dsa.c, at this point,
> and for the sake of getting these patches merged via David, I can
> probably just keep it where it is (like what patch series v1 did) and
> just namespace it with dsa_. Later on, if this is deemed valuable to
> other parts of the kernel, I can try to relocate it to the device core,
> does that sound acceptable?

Nope!

I really want to try to understand what you all are doing with the
device tree that you feel that blindly walking it actually comes up with
a valid result.

See my other email about wanting to see a tree, we can take it from that
thread to try to consolidate all of these different ones.

And sorry, I know you are just trying to move code around, but this
isn't the first time this has come up, and I think it needs to be
resolved properly.

thanks,

greg k-h