On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 11:45:38 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 7/6/2020 11:40 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 21:27:58 -0700 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> + ops = ethtool_phy_ops;
> >> + if (!ops || !ops->start_cable_test) {
> >
> > nit: don't think member-by-member checking is necessary. We don't
> > expect there to be any alternative versions of the ops, right?
>
> There could be, a network device driver not using PHYLIB could register
> its own operations and only implement a subset of these operations.
I'd strongly prefer drivers did not insert themselves into
subsys-to-subsys glue :S
> > We could even risk a direct call:
> >
> > #if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_PHYLIB)
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > return __do_x();
> > }
> > #else
> > static inline int do_x()
> > {
> > if (!ops)
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > return ops->do_x();
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > But that's perhaps doing too much...
>
> Fine either way with me, let us see what Michal and Andrew think about that.
Ack, let's hear it :)
