Hi Marek,
On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 20:15:52 +0200, Marek Behun <marek.be...@nic.cz> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 20:03:42 +0200
> Marek Behun <marek.be...@nic.cz> wrote:
>
> > One way would be to rename the mv88e6xxx_setup_port function to
> > mv88e6xxx_setup_port_regs, or mv88e6xxx_port_pre_setup, or something
> > like that. Would the names mv88e6xxx_port_setup and
> > mv88e6xxx_setup_port_regs still be very confusing and error prone?
> > I think maybe yes...
> >
> > Other solution would be to, instead of the .port_setup()
> > and .port_teardown() DSA ops, create the .after_setup()
> > and .before_teardown() ops I mentioned in the previous mail.
> >
> > And yet another (in my opinion very improper) solution could be that
> > the .setup() method could call dsa_port_setup() from within itself, to
> > ensure that the needed structres exist.
>
> I thought of another solution, one that does not need new DSA
> operations. What if dsa_port_enable was called for CPU/DSA ports after
> in dsa_port_setup_switches, after all ports are setup, and
> dsa_port_disable called for CPU/DSA ports in dsa_port_teardown_switches?
>
> This seems to me as cleaner solution.
>
> Marek
Yes DSA needs to initialize a switch before its ports, but the driver may
need the opposite. Splitting the switch and ports setup and moving it up to
the DSA stack is a separate topic in fact that I'll handle soon.
I guess you meant dsa_tree_setup_switches instead of dsa_port_setup_switches.
Let's call dsa_port_enable/dsa_port_disable for the CPU and DSA ports as well.
Thanks,
Vivien
