Hi Andrew,
Andrew Lunn <[email protected]> writes:
>> The mv88e6xxx_ops actually implements the *features*. They can be
>> prefixed for clarity (e.g. .ppu_*, port_*, .atu_*, etc.). They don't
>> describe the register layout.
>>
>> But we can discuss two ways of seeing this structure implementation:
>
> or
>
> 3) We have a prefix for us humans to help us find the code. Now we
> have ops, i cannot simply do M-. and emacs will take me to the
> implementation. I have to search for it a bit. Having the hint g1_
> tells me to go look in global1.c. Having the hint g2_ tells me to go
> look in global2.c. Having the port_ tells me to go look in port.c.
> Having no prefix tells me the code is scattered around and grep is my
> friend.
Just to be clear:
I totally agree for an implementation (e.g. mv88e6095_g1_set_cpu_port),
that's why I've been doing it since I started splitting the code around
in device-specific files. But I disagree for an mv88e6xxx_ops member.
You can have several implementations in the same file (e.g. global1.c),
so again the only value is the function name, not the struct member.
Thanks,
Vivien
