Hi Russell,

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:21:13PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 01:54:19PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:  

quoted

This commit shall be regarded as a transition one, as this
function helps to validate the correctness of max_frame_size
variable added to mv88e6xxx_info structure.

It is necessary to avoid regressions as manual assessment of this
value turned out to be error prone.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
Suggested-by: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>  

Shouldn't this be patch 2 - immediately after populating the
.max_frame_size members, and before adding any additional devices?  

Moreover, shouldn't the patch order be:

1, 5, 6 (fixing the entry that needs it), 7 (which then gets the
max frame size support in place), 4 (so that .set_max_frame_size for
6250 is in place), 2, 3

?

In other words, get the new infrastructure you need in place first
(that being the new .max_frame_size and the .set_max_frame_size
function) before then adding the new support.

Ok, I will reorder those patches and submit v6.

Do you have any other comments regarding this patch set?


Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Erika Unter
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de