Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/6] net: dsa: motorcomm: refactor registration path for upcoming switch families

On 9/5/26 01:03, David Yang wrote:

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026 at 5:54 PM Kyle Switch [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+               .name = "YT921X",

nit: We usually stylize it with "YT921x".

Ans: okay,will be fixed in next version.

quoted

+       if (major == YT9215_MAJOR || major == YT9218_MAJOR)
+               mode = YT921X;
+
+       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(yt92xx_series_info_table); ++i)
+               if (yt92xx_series_info_table[i].mode == mode)
+                       return &yt92xx_series_info_table[i];

Redundant if you use both indexed assignment and lookup routine, since
you know the index already.

quoted

  static const struct of_device_id yt921x_of_match[] = {
-       { .compatible = "motorcomm,yt9215" },
-       {}
+       {
+               .compatible = "motorcomm,yt9215",
+               .data = &yt92xx_series_info_table[YT921X],

Redundant if you use both runtime identification and the match data.
Also I'm concerned with early IO operations, although I didn't see any
incorrectness here.

Ans: we have considered this issue before. in the next version, we

will consider whether to do it via chip_detect() or using indexed

assignment. From your suggestion, what are the side effects of each

approach and which of the two approaches do you recommend?

quoted

+enum yt92xx_mode {
+       YT921X,
+       YT922X,
+       YT_MAX,
+};

nit: Use prefix/suffix like YT92XX_MODE_YT921X or YT921X_SERIES to
avoid too broad names and future name collision.

Ans: okay, will be fixed in next version.

quoted

  struct yt921x_priv {
         struct dsa_switch ds;

+       const struct yt92xx_series_info *series_info;
         const struct yt921x_info *info;

nit: Better to use const struct yt92xx_series *series for simplicity.

Ans: okay.