Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage

[Egil Hjelmeland]

On 31. juli 2017 16:43, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Egil,
>
> Egil Hjelmeland <privat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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

Would doing

-	chip->ds = dsa_switch_alloc(chip->dev, DSA_MAX_PORTS);
+	chip->ds = dsa_switch_alloc(chip->dev, LAN9303_NUM_PORTS);

at the same time be good, or breaking the scope of the patch?

Egil