linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] netdev/phy: Add driver for Broadcom BCM87XX 10G Ethernet

To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] netdev/phy: Add driver for Broadcom BCM87XX 10G Ethernet PHYs
From: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 11:26:56 -0700
Cc: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com>, "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" <devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, Fleming Andy-AFLEMING <afleming@freescale.com>
In-reply-to: <1337710660.3432.8.camel@joe2Laptop>
References: <1337709592-23347-1-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <1337709592-23347-5-git-send-email-ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> <1337710660.3432.8.camel@joe2Laptop>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10
On 05/22/2012 11:17 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 10:59 -0700, David Daney wrote:
From: David Daney<david.daney@cavium.com>

trivia:

As long as we are splitting hairs...


diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.c b/drivers/net/phy/bcm87xx.c
[]
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@

+static int bcm87xx_of_reg_init(struct phy_device *phydev)
+{
+       const __be32 *paddr;
+       int len, i, ret;
+
+       if (!phydev->dev.of_node)
+               return 0;
+
+       paddr = of_get_property(phydev->dev.of_node,
+                               "broadcom,c45-reg-init",&len);
+       if (!paddr || len<  (4 * sizeof(*paddr)))
+               return 0;
+
+       ret = 0;
+       len /= sizeof(*paddr);
+       for (i = 0; i<  len - 3; i += 4) {
+               u16 devid = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i);
+               u16 reg = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 1);
+               u16 mask = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 2);
+               u16 val_bits = be32_to_cpup(paddr + i + 3);
+               int val;

These might read better as

        len /= 4;

Where did the magic value of 4 come from?

        for (i = 0; i<  len; i++) {
                u16 devid       = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
                u16 reg         = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
                u16 mask        = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);
                u16 val_bits    = be32_to_cpu(*paddr++);

Is the main problem that they didn't align, or that the index was explicit instead of implicit?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>