On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:48:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:58 PM Calvin Johnson
> <calvin.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Define phylink_fwnode_phy_connect() to connect phy specified by
> > a fwnode to a phylink instance.
>
> ...
>
> > + if (is_of_node(fwnode)) {
> > + ret = phylink_of_phy_connect(pl, to_of_node(fwnode), flags);
> > + } else if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) {
> > + phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
> > + if (!phy_dev)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);
> > + }
>
> Looking at this more I really don't like how this if-else-if looks like.
>
> I would rather expect something like
>
> phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
> if (!phy_dev)
> return -ENODEV;
> ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);
>
> Where phy_find_by_fwnode() will take care about OF or any other
> possible fwnode cases.
phy_find_by_fwnode() has a different purpose from that of
phylink_fwnode_phy_connect(). Current implementation looks good to me as it
clearly takes different paths for DT and ACPI cases.
Thanks
Calvin
