Regards,
Igal Liberman

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 5:25 PM
To: Liberman Igal-B31950 <redacted>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org; Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716
[off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [V5, 2/6] fsl/fman: Add FMan support

On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 10:22 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote:

quoted

Regards,
Igal Liberman

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:31 PM
To: Liberman Igal-B31950 <redacted>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org; linux-
kernel@vger.kernel.org; Bucur Madalin-Cristian-B32716
[off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [V5, 2/6] fsl/fman: Add FMan support

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 11:32 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+
+struct device *fman_get_device(struct fman *fman) {  return
+fman->dev; }

Is this really necessary?

Fman port needs fman->dev, fman structure is opaque, so yes, it's
needed.

Why is opacity being maintained from one part of the fman driver to
another?
Isn't this the sort of excessive layering that was complained about?

It's not really layering.
Fman Port uses Fman resources, it's not completely standalone.

That's my point -- if it's not standalone, why is "struct fman" opaque to the
port code?

OK, I'll expose struct fman. 

-Scott