On Jul 25, 2005, at 16:06, Francois Romieu wrote:
[snip]
>
>> +config DAVICOM_PHY
>> + bool "Drivers for Davicom PHYs"
>> + depends on PHYLIB
>> + ---help---
>> + Currently supports dm9161e and dm9131
>>
> [snip]
Yeah, I resisted splitting the patch up for this reason. Suffice it
to say, you have to apply patch #2 to not break everything.
Splitting the PHY driver code from the PHY layer is just for
"convenience"
>> +int mdiobus_register(struct mii_bus *bus)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + int err = 0;
>> +
>> + spin_lock_init(&bus->mdio_lock);
>> +
>> + if (NULL == bus || NULL == bus->name ||
>> + NULL == bus->read ||
>> + NULL == bus->write)
>>
>
> Be spartan:
> if (!bus || !bus->name || !bus->read || !bus->write)
I think we have to agree to disagree here. I could be convinced, but
I'm partial to using NULL explicitly.
>> +
>> +/* Convenience function to print out the current phy status
>> + */
>> +void phy_print_status(struct phy_device *phydev)
>> +{
>> + pr_info("%s: Link is %s", phydev->dev.bus_id,
>> + phydev->link ? "Up" : "Down");
>> + if (phydev->link)
>> + printk(" - %d/%s", phydev->speed,
>>
>
> Missing KERN_SOMETHING in the printk.
Actually, KERN_SOMETHING would muck up the line, and make it look
like this:
phy0:0: Link is Up<3> - 1000/Full
That's why it's like that.
>> +/* A mapping of all SUPPORTED settings to speed/duplex */
>> +static struct phy_setting settings[] = {
>> + { .speed = 10000, .duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_10000baseT_Full,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_1000, .duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_1000baseT_Full,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_1000, .duplex = DUPLEX_HALF,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_1000baseT_Half,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_100, .duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_100baseT_Full,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_100, .duplex = DUPLEX_HALF,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_100baseT_Half,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_10, .duplex = DUPLEX_FULL,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_10baseT_Full,
>> + },
>> + { .speed = SPEED_10, .duplex = DUPLEX_HALF,
>> + .setting = SUPPORTED_10baseT_Half,
>> + },
>> +};
>>
>
> Would you veto some macro to initialise this array ?
Depends on the macro. :) I'm not keen on writing it, but I would
support one that:
a) works
b) Isn't uglier than the current solution. :)
>> +static inline int phy_find_setting(int speed, int duplex)
>> +{
>> + int idx = 0;
>> +
>> + while (idx < MAX_NUM_SETTINGS &&
>> + (settings[idx].speed != speed ||
>> + settings[idx].duplex != duplex))
>> + idx++;
>>
>
> "for" loop in disguise ?
Well.... I think it falls into the gray area. It's searching until
it finds something, which implies "while" to me. Really it's more of
a while...until. Of course, a for loop could be used, but I often
worry about using a for loop's iterator variable outside of the
loop. I will change to ARRAY_SIZE, though.
>
>
>> +
>> + return idx < MAX_NUM_SETTINGS ? idx : MAX_NUM_SETTINGS - 1;
>>
>
> Ok (dunno if "idx % MAX_NUM_SETTINGS" is more idiomatic or not).
That would be completely different. The current code makes sure
that, if no valid match was found, the last value in the array is
returned. Using % would result in the first value being returned. I
was defaulting to the lowest setting.
>> +int phy_start_interrupts(struct phy_device *phydev)
>> +{
>> + int err = 0;
>> +
>> + INIT_WORK(&phydev->phy_queue, phy_change, phydev);
>> +
>> + if (request_irq(phydev->irq, phy_interrupt,
>> + SA_SHIRQ,
>> + "phy_interrupt",
>> + phydev) < 0) {
>>
>
> Please, don't do that :o(
>
> err = request_irq(phydev->irq, phy_interrupt, SA_SHIRQ,
> "phy_interrupt", phydev);
> if (err < 0)
> ...
I did a cursory search, and didn't find any other drivers which use
this method. Which is the method preferred in Linux?
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Can't get IRQ %d (PHY)\n",
>> + phydev->bus->name,
>> + phydev->irq);
>> + phydev->irq = PHY_POLL;
>> + return 0;
>>
>
> The description of the function says "Returns 0 on success".
Failing to request the IRQ does not result in failure of the
function. It falls back to polling, instead.
However, it can fail if phy_enable_interrupts() fails, which would
happen if a hardware issue occurred.
>> + /* Otherwise, we allocate the device, and initialize the
>> + * default values */
>> + dev = kmalloc(sizeof(*dev), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> + if (NULL == dev) {
>> + errno = -ENOMEM;
>> + return NULL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + memset(dev, 0, sizeof(*dev));
>>
>
> The kernel provides kcalloc.
I went looking for it, and found it in fs/cifs/misc.c. I'm hesitant
to link to a function defined in the filesystem code just to save 1
line of code
I agree with all the other suggestions, and will implement them.
