Dear Thomas, OK, I will update this part in the next code refactoring.
By the way, I would like to ask how to resolve this error. From what I can see, it does not seem to be related to the patches I uploaded. https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2025-June/886815.html Thanks! Howard Wang -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> 发送时间: 2025年6月18日 17:25 收件人: 王颢 <howard_w...@realsil.com.cn> 抄送: Andre Muezerie <andre...@linux.microsoft.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> 主题: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers/net: remove use of non-standard array range initialization External mail : This email originated from outside the organization. Do not reply, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 16/06/2025 09:37, David Marchand: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 4:18 PM Andre Muezerie > <andre...@linux.microsoft.com> wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c > > b/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c > > index 5a69b3e094..c9bf5fc6ad 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/r8169/base/rtl8125a_mcu.c > > @@ -162,7 +162,13 @@ static void > > rtl_release_phy_mcu_patch_key_lock(struct rtl_hw *hw) { > > switch (hw->mcfg) { > > - case CFG_METHOD_48 ... CFG_METHOD_53: > > + /* CFG_METHOD_48 ... CFG_METHOD_53 */ > > + case CFG_METHOD_48: > > + case CFG_METHOD_49: > > + case CFG_METHOD_50: > > + case CFG_METHOD_51: > > + case CFG_METHOD_52: > > + case CFG_METHOD_53: > > rtl_mdio_direct_write_phy_ocp(hw, 0xA436, 0x0000); > > rtl_mdio_direct_write_phy_ocp(hw, 0xA438, 0x0000); > > rtl_clear_eth_phy_ocp_bit(hw, 0xB82E, BIT_0); > > I don't have a strong opinion against this change. > The driver maintainer already acked this change. > > So just some comment, on the form. > switch() here does not seem well suited since this driver code is > validating a range of values. > if (hw->mcfg >= CFG_METHOD_48 && hw->mcfg <= CFG_METHOD_53) seems more > robust and is easier to read. Yes I agree with David. Please could you fix this code to have simpler code with some "if"?
