On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:23:06PM -0400, Vivien Didelot wrote:

Hi Patrick,

Two comments below.

Patrick Uiterwijk [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

+static int mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes(struct dsa_switch *ds)

Since this function assumes the SMI lock is already held, its name
should be prefixed with _ by convention (_mv88e6xxx_power_on_serdes).

We decided to drop at, since nearly everything would end up with a _
prefix. The assert_smi_lock() should find any missing locks, and
lockdep/deadlocks will make it clear when the lock is taken twice.

	  Andrew