On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:23:12PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:00:08PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:49:01PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:38:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:31:04PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:03:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 12:00:06PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: ... > > > > > > > + struct fwnode_handle *fwnode; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn); > > > > > > > > > > > > const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn); > > > > > > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > Why const? > > > > > > > > Do you modify its content on the fly? > > > > > > Do you want to litter code with casts to get rid of the const? > > > > > > > For fwnode as a basic object type we want to reduce the scope of the possible > > > > modifications. If you don't modify and APIs you call do not require non-const > > > > object, use const for fwnode. > > > > > > Let's start here. We pass this fwnode to fwnode_get_phy_mode(): > > > > > > include/linux/property.h:int fwnode_get_phy_mode(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode); > > > > > > Does fwnode_get_phy_mode() alter the contents of the fwnode? Probably > > > not, but it doesn't take a const pointer. Therefore, to declare my > > > fwnode as const, I'd need to cast the const-ness away before calling > > > this. > > > > So, fix the fwnode_get_phy_mode(). Is it a problem? > > No, I refuse. That's for a different patch set. I don't disagree, but it can be done as a precursor to your RFC. > > > Then there's phylink_create(). Same problem. > > > > So, fix that. Is it a problem? > > No for the same reason. > > > > So NAK to this const - until such time that we have a concerted effort > > > to making functions we call which do not modify the "fwnode" argument > > > constify that argument. Otherwise it's just rediculously crazy to > > > declare a variable const only to then litter the code with casts to get > > > rid of it at every call site. > > > > > > Please do a bit of research before making suggestions. Thanks. > > > > So, MAK to your patch. You can fix that, and you know that. > > Sorry, I don't accept your NAK. While you have a valid point about > these things being const, that is not the fault of this patch series, > and is something that should be addressed separately. Yes, and since it's not a big deal it can be done as a precursor work. > The lack of const-ness that has been there for quite some time is no > reason to NAK a patch that has nothing to do with this. Instead of saying politely that you didn't agree of the necessity of the asked changes, you shoowed your confrontational manner with a strong NAK. Let's not escalate it further, it won't play well with a nervous system. > > P.S. Please, move that phy thingy away from property.h, it doesn't belong > > there. > > Again, that's a subject for a separate patch. > > I will re-post this in due course and ignore your NAK (due to your > lack of research, and confrontational nature.) Don't make a drama out of it. Many maintainers are asking for a small cleanups before applying a feature. Nevertheless, since I'm neither a net nor a DSA maintainer, I have only thing to push is to move the PHY APIs out from the property.h. The rest is up to you. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
