From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
To: "Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>
Cc: NetDev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@intel.com>,
Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: igb: Intel 82575 gigabit ethernet driver (take #2)
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:33:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47684AA9.9050409@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <475F107A.8080201@intel.com>
Looks pretty decent. Main comments (style mostly, driver operation path
seems sound):
* kill the bitfields and unions [in descriptor structs]. they are not
endian-safe as presented, generate poor code, and are otherwise undesirable.
* the basic operations are too verbose: E1000_READ_REG(hw, REGISTER) is
far more readable as ER32(REGISTER), following the style of other
drivers. Furthermore, the "E1000_" prefix, in addition to being overly
redundant (used in each register read/write), it is also incorrect,
because this is not E1000...
* in general, rename everything with "e1000_" prefix. this will
eliminate plenty of human confusion in the long run.
* API: unless you have chips in the lab that will require an API hook,
don't create one. For example, a direct call to
e1000_acquire_nvm_82575() should replace all ->acquire_nvm() hooks....
if there are no chips in pipeline GUARANTEED to have a different
->acquire_nvm() feature.
In general, I try to communicate that I am not opposed to these hooks,
you merely need to make sure they are needed in _each_ case. Otherwise
engineers WILL fall into the habit of writing bloated code simply
because that's what their chosen driver framework has always done.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-18 22:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-11 22:34 RFC: igb: Intel 82575 gigabit ethernet driver (take #2) Kok, Auke
2007-12-12 17:18 ` Kok, Auke
2007-12-18 22:33 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2008-01-10 19:57 ` Kok, Auke
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47684AA9.9050409@pobox.com \
--to=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=john.ronciak@intel.com \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).