From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:35980 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S935094AbeCSUje (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:39:34 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:39:23 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] sfp/phylink: move module EEPROM ethtool access
 into netdev core ethtool
Message-ID: <20180319203923.GD1607@lunn.ch>
References: <E1eQaEt-000329-8b@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk>
 <a3b7907a-d7b7-093a-20c5-21beb982e825@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a3b7907a-d7b7-093a-20c5-21beb982e825@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:20:32PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 06:48 AM, Russell King wrote:
> > Provide a pointer to the SFP bus in struct net_device, so that the
> > ethtool module EEPROM methods can access the SFP directly, rather
> > than needing every user to provide a hook for it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> > ---
> > Questions:
> > 1. Is it worth adding a pointer to struct net_device for these two
> >    methods, rather than having multiple duplicate veneers to vector
> >    the ethtool module EEPROM ioctls through to the SFP bus layer?
> 
> Considering the negative diffstat and the fact that it solves real
> problems for you, I would say yes.

We have also received a bunch of patches removing the phydev pointer
for driver private structures and making use of the net_device one. It
would be nice to avoid the same with phylink.

      Andrew