Re: [PATCH net-next 25/30] net: dsa: mt7530: properly set MT7531_CPU_PMAP

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 4.06.2023 16:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 11:21:48AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > > Stylistically, the existence of an indirect call to priv->info->cpu_port_config()
> > > per switch family is a bit dissonant with an explicit check for device id later
> > > in the same function.
> >
> > mt753x_cpu_port_enable() is not being called from priv->info->cpu_port_config()
> > though.
>
> Quite the other way around. I'm saying that mt753x_cpu_port_enable(),
> the function whose logic you're changing, already has a mechanism to
> execute code specific to one switch family.

Ah, makes sense.

> > I'm not sure how I would do this without the device ID check here.
>
> Hmm, by defining a new mt7530_cpu_port_config() procedure for ID_MT7621
> and ID_MT7530?
>
> Although in a different thread we are perhaps challenging the idea that
> what is currently in priv->info->cpu_port_config() is useful - at least
> half of it are manual invocations of phylink methods which are possibly
> not needed. If after the removal of those, it no longer makes sense to
> have priv->info->cpu_port_config() at all, then I'm not saying that the
> explicit check for device id here doesn't make sense. Just that it's not
> in harmony with what currently exists 3 lines above.

Regardless of the outcome of that conversation, I would like to avoid 
structural changes like this since this patch will go to net.

> > > > -#define  MT7531_CPU_PMAP_MASK		GENMASK(7, 0)
> > > > +#define  MT7531_CPU_PMAP(x)		((x) & 0xff)
> > >
> > > You can leave this as ((x) & GENMASK(7, 0))
> >
> > Now that I've read Russell's comment on the previous patch, the below would
> > be even better?
> >
> > MT7531_CPU_PMAP(x)		FIELD_PREP(MT7531_CPU_PMAP_MASK, x)
> >
> > > > +#define  MT7531_CPU_PMAP_MASK		MT7531_CPU_PMAP(~0)
> > >
> > > There's no other user of MT7531_CPU_PMAP_MASK, you can remove this.
> >
> > Should I do above or remove this?
>
> No specific preference. If you want to make this driver start using
> FIELD_PREP() then go ahead.

Will do.

Arınç