On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:05:30AM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Because there are several variant of the VTU operations and because
> checking for the presence of an STU is not enough, add new ops to the
> info structure to describe the VTU operations that a chip supports.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c | 58
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/mv88e6xxx.h | 8 ++++-
> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 7010c3313e35..256a209eef9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -1220,33 +1220,19 @@ static void mv88e6xxx_port_fast_age(struct dsa_switch
> *ds, int port)
> static int mv88e6xxx_vtu_getnext(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
> struct mv88e6xxx_vtu_entry *entry)
> {
> - int err;
> -
> if (!mv88e6xxx_has_vtu(chip))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> - if (mv88e6xxx_has(chip, MV88E6XXX_FLAG_STU))
> - err = mv88e6352_g1_vtu_getnext(chip, entry);
> - else
> - err = mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(chip, entry);
> -
> - return err;
> + return chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext(chip, entry);
> }
You appear to be taking out code you just added in the previous patch.
Please think about structuring these patches different. We want these
ops, but i don't think you have the best way of getting there.
Andrew
