On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:53:46PM +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: > > > 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? > > > > > Then there's phylink_create(). Same problem. > > > > So, fix that. Is it a problem? > > To do both of these creates a five patch series, because there are so > many things that need to be constified: > > fwnode_get_phy_mode() is the trivial one. > > sfp_bus_find_fwnode(), and the sfp-bus internal fwnode uses. > > fwnode_get_phy_node(). > > phylink_create(), phylink_parse_fixedlink(), phylink_parse_mode(), > phylink_fwnode_phy_connect(). > > Hopefully nothing breaks as a result of changing all those - but that > can hardly be "tacked" on to the start of my series as a trivial > change - and clearly such a change should _not_ be part of this > series. Thank you for doing that! > Those five patches do not include moving fwnode_get_phy_mode(), whose > location remains undecided. No problem, we like iterative work. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
