On 10:55 Fri 28 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:27:16AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 09:50 Fri 28 Sep , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:28:21AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > HI, > > > > > > > > The patch is next > > > > net/eth: fix link handling > > > > > > > > was NEVER send to the ML > > > > > > > > IIRC I was the author of the first version and this disapear > > > > > > > > Uwe and I just get this discussion on the kernel ML about patch update > > > > > > > > > > I was basically pissed off because I got the strong feeling that I spent > > > more time reviewing and testing the patch than you initially spent > > > writing it in the first place. The second version still stored apples > > > in edev->phydev->link and bananas in edev->carrier, but still did a > > > edev->carrier = dev->link. > > I did this on purpose as I do want to store the link and later export it via > > env as I get a patch here for 2 wifi driver where I'll not use the phylib > > > > so store the carrier is the correct way > > Whatever it is, adding a variable to an ethernet device and then > manipulating it in both the phylib and the ethernet code is desastrous. > It must be clear everytime who owns a variable. Doing a > > eth_current->carrier = CARRIER_UNKNOW; > > in the ethernet code, and then: > > edev->carrier = dev->link; > > in the phy code is a recipe for spaghetti code. > so we need to do call net_carrier in phylib as done in the kernel the net framework mamange the carrier by itself as example in wifi phy up does not mean carrier on Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
