On Thursday 20 October 2011 17:10:12 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 20 October 2011 17:00:12 Kyle Moffett wrote: > > Approximately 90% of the PHY drivers follow the PHY layer docs and > > simply use &genphy_read_status and &genphy_config_aneg. There would > > seem to be little point in requiring them all to manually specify those > > functions. > > well, it does make sense if you think about the compile vs build time > overhead. yes, your patch does make things much nicer to read, and a > little easier to maintain the source. however, it adds runtime overhead > (checking the func pointers) while the func pointer storage is unchanged > (it's now a NULL pointer instead of pointing to the genphy funcs). > personally, i think the savings in runtime and smaller compiled code is > more important. so i'm going to NAK this. sorry. > > > This patch makes it much easier for subsequent patches to split and > > refactor the functionality of the .config_aneg() method. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Moffett <Kyle.D.Moffett@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > Documentation/networking/phy.txt | 13 +++++-------- > > drivers/net/phy/bcm63xx.c | 4 ---- > > hrm, what tree are you using ? this driver is not in mainline. ah, sorry, i was thinking this was u-boot since we were just having conversations there. since this is Linux, and i don't have real standing in the general netdev community, i can't really NAK here. but i think my comment still stands in that this patch makes things much worse than the minor code style improvement. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
