On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 15:02:10 +0200 Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> +void ethtool_set_ethtool_pse_ops(const struct ethtool_pse_ops *ops)
> +{
> + rtnl_lock();
> + ethtool_pse_ops = ops;
> + rtnl_unlock();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ethtool_set_ethtool_pse_ops);
Do we really need the loose linking on the PSE ops?
It's not a lot of code, and the pcdev->ops should be
enough to decouple drivers, it seems.
> +static int pse_set_pse_config(struct net_device *dev,
> + struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> + struct nlattr **tb)
> +{
> + struct phy_device *phydev = dev->phydev;
> + struct pse_control_config config = {};
> + const struct ethtool_pse_ops *ops;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL])
> + return 0;
If SET has no useful attrs the usual response is -EINVAL.
> + ops = ethtool_pse_ops;
> + if (!ops || !ops->set_config)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + config.admin_cotrol = nla_get_u8(tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL]);
> +
> + if (!phydev)
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> + // todo resolve phydev dependecy
My lack of phydev understanding and laziness are likely the cause,
but I haven't found an explanation for this todo. What is it about?
> + if (!phydev->psec)
> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + else
> + ret = ops->set_config(phydev->psec, extack, &config);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
