From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1162406AbdD0Svo (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:51:44 -0400 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([178.209.37.122]:43697 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S938642AbdD0Svj (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:51:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 20:51:34 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Vivien Didelot Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@savoirfairelinux.com, "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/18] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: move VTU VID accessors Message-ID: <20170427185134.GJ17364@lunn.ch> References: <20170426155336.5937-1-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> <20170426155336.5937-8-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170426155336.5937-8-vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > @@ -1464,13 +1457,16 @@ static int _mv88e6xxx_vtu_loadpurge(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, > struct mv88e6xxx_vtu_entry *entry) > { > u16 op = GLOBAL_VTU_OP_VTU_LOAD_PURGE; > - u16 reg = 0; > int err; > > err = mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_op_wait(chip); > if (err) > return err; > > + err = mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_vid_write(chip, entry); > + if (err) > + return err; > + > if (!entry->valid) > goto loadpurge; > > @@ -1496,14 +1492,7 @@ static int _mv88e6xxx_vtu_loadpurge(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, > op |= (entry->fid & 0xf0) << 8; > op |= entry->fid & 0xf; > } > - > - reg = GLOBAL_VTU_VID_VALID; > loadpurge: > - reg |= entry->vid & GLOBAL_VTU_VID_MASK; > - err = mv88e6xxx_g1_write(chip, GLOBAL_VTU_VID, reg); > - if (err) > - return err; > - > return mv88e6xxx_g1_vtu_op(chip, op); > } This is not obvious, why do the vtu_vid_write() at the beginning, rather than at the end? Especially before the if (!entry->valid). However, when you look at the rest of the patch, it is O.K. It might of been better to do this in two patches, to make it clearer what is going on. Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn Andrew