From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pl0-f65.google.com ([209.85.160.65]:40541 "EHLO
        mail-pl0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753744AbeCUVpQ (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 17:45:16 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:45:13 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC V1 2/5] net: phy: Move time stamping
 interface into the generic mdio layer.
Message-ID: <20180321214513.5kkw4qpbhp3juxur@localhost>
References: <cover.1521656774.git.richardcochran@gmail.com>
 <b032dcdb34684e3831530da1bb198c764e61968b.1521656774.git.richardcochran@gmail.com>
 <e6c7b4e1-9449-58be-f670-4b6a8aa4b526@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e6c7b4e1-9449-58be-f670-4b6a8aa4b526@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:10:07PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > +	phydev->mdio.ts_info = dp83640_ts_info;
> > +	phydev->mdio.hwtstamp = dp83640_hwtstamp;
> > +	phydev->mdio.rxtstamp = dp83640_rxtstamp;
> > +	phydev->mdio.txtstamp = dp83640_txtstamp;
> 
> Why is this implemented a the mdio_device level and not at the
> mdio_driver level? This looks like the wrong level at which this is done.

The question could be asked of:

struct mdio_device {
	int (*bus_match)(struct device *dev, struct device_driver *drv);
	void (*device_free)(struct mdio_device *mdiodev);
	void (*device_remove)(struct mdio_device *mdiodev);
}

I saw how this is done for the phy, etc, but I don't see any benefit
of doing it that way.  It would add an extra layer (or two) of
indirection and save the space four pointer functions.  Is that
trade-off worth it?

Thanks,
Richard