On 27 January 2017 at 17:14, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Felix Fietkau <n...@nbd.name> > Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:02:33 +0100 > >> On 2017-01-27 10:20, Rafał Miłecki wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <ra...@milecki.pl> >>> >>> To share as much code as possible in bgmac we call alloc_etherdev from >>> bgmac.c which is used by both: platform and bcma code. The easiest >>> solution was to use it for allocating whole struct bgmac but it doesn't >>> work well as we already get early-filled struct bgmac as an argument. >>> >>> So far we were solving this by copying received struct into newly >>> allocated one. The problem is it means storing 2 allocated structs, >>> using only 1 of them and non-shared code not having access to it. >>> >>> This patch solves it by using alloc_etherdev to allocate *pointer* for >>> the already allocated struct. The only downside of this is we have to be >>> careful when using netdev_priv. >>> >>> Another solution was to call alloc_etherdev in platform/bcma specific >>> code but Jon advised against it due to sharing less code that way. >> How does that lead to sharing less code? >> I find this pointer indirection rather ugly and uncommon, and I think it >> would be much cleaner to split the probe into bgmac_enet_alloc and >> bgmac_enet_probe (with bgmac_enet_alloc calling alloc_etherdev and doing >> basic setup). > > I agree, it would be so much better if bgmac_probe() and friends > initialized a real bgmac object which was the private of a netdev > struct, then passed that down into bgmac_enet_probe().
I'll work on V2, thanks. -- Rafał
