Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] netdev: octeon-ethernet: Add Cavium Octeon III support.

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-mips@linux-mips.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org,
	Carlos Munoz <cmunoz@cavium.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Steven J. Hill" <steven.hill@cavium.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	James Hogan <james.hogan@mips.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] netdev: octeon-ethernet: Add Cavium Octeon III support.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:11:38 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171129191138.ntlfw5fb4xacwyun@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFqt6zZAPxKm663yEHD0Rx2SPye9Nvoax0RMroDQuF8BpZchsA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:37:15PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote:
> >> +static int bgx_port_sgmii_set_link_speed(struct bgx_port_priv *priv, struct port_status status)
> >> +{
> >> +       u64     data;
> >> +       u64     prtx;
> >> +       u64     miscx;
> >> +       int     timeout;
> >> +
> 
> >> +
> >> +       switch (status.speed) {
> >> +       case 10:
> >
> > In my opinion, instead of hard coding the value, is it fine to use ENUM ?
>    Similar comments applicable in other places where hard coded values are used.
> 

10 means 10M right?  That's not really a magic number.  It's fine.

> >> +static int bgx_port_init_xaui_link(struct bgx_port_priv *priv)
> >> +{
> 
> >> +
> >> +               if (use_ber) {
> >> +                       timeout = 10000;
> >> +                       do {
> >> +                               data =
> >> +                               oct_csr_read(BGX_SPU_BR_STATUS1(priv->node, priv->bgx, priv->index));
> >> +                               if (data & BIT(0))
> >> +                                       break;
> >> +                               timeout--;
> >> +                               udelay(1);
> >> +                       } while (timeout);
> >
> > In my opinion, it's better to implement similar kind of loops inside macros.

I don't understand what you mean here.  For what it's worth this code
seems clear enough to me (except for the bad indenting of oct_csr_read().

It should be something like:
				data = oct_csr_read(BGX_SPU_BR_STATUS1(priv->node,
						priv->bgx, priv->index));

That's over the 80 char limit but so is the original code.

regards,
dan carpenter