Messages in this thread | | | From | Vivien Didelot <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage | Date | Mon, 31 Jul 2017 10:43:44 -0400 |
| |
Hi Egil,
Egil Hjelmeland <privat@egil-hjelmeland.no> writes:
>>> + for (p = 0; p <= 2; p++) { >> >> Exclusive limits are often prefer, i.e. 'p < 3'. >> > OK, that can be nice when I later introduce LAN9303_NUM_PORTS = 3.
This is indeed another reason what exclusive limits are prefered ;-)
>>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + ret = lan9303_disable_packet_processing(chip, p); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >> >> When any non-zero return code means an error, we usually see 'err' >> instead of 'ret'. >> > > But 'ret' is used throughout the rest of the file. Is it not better to > be locally consistent?
You are correct, I was missing a bit of context here.
>>> case 1: >>> - return lan9303_enable_packet_processing(chip, port); >> >> Is this deletion intentional? The commit message does not explain this. >> >> When possible, it is appreciated to separate functional from >> non-functional changes. For example one commit adding the loop in >> lan9303_disable_processing and another one to not enable/disable packet >> processing on port 1. >> > > Case fall through, the change is purely non-functional. > > You are perhaps thinking of the patch in my first series where I removed > disable of port 0. I have put that on hold. Juergen says that the > mainline driver works out of the box for him. So I will investigate > that problem bit more.
Correct! I misread, my bad. This is indeed cleaner with this patch. With the LAN9303_NUM_PORTS limit and detailed commit message, the patch LGTM.
Thanks,
Vivien
| |