On 27/01/2025 11:30, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 1/27/25 11:32 AM, Paul Barker wrote:
Hi Marek,
On 25/01/2025 12:56, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 1/21/25 3:38 PM, Paul Barker wrote:
On 18/01/2025 06:53, Marek Vasut wrote:
Introduce mdio_init() split off from mdio_alloc(), which is used to initialize already allocated struct mii_dev.
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org
Replying here for the whole patch series...
I like where we get to at the end of this series, but I don't like the intermediate state where the bb_miiphy_buses arrays still exist but are unused. I also think we should introduce a new ops struct so we're not duplicating function pointers in each instance of struct bb_miiphy_bus.
I would prefer the following order of changes, let me know if you think this would be cleaner:
Introduce mdio_init().
Add mii member to struct bb_miiphy_bus.
Modify each driver to use the mii member of the appropriate struct bb_miiphy_bus instance, calling mdio_init() instead of mdio_alloc(). At this point we're still using the instances in the statically allocated bb_miiphy_buses array.
Those instances might be rodata , so using them as read-write storage does not necessarily work , does it ?
None of the instances in the current U-Boot code are marked as const, and the name field is already modified at runtime by each driver. So I don't think we need to worry about them being rodata.
Can the compiler not decide to place the structure into rodata if it is never written ?
To my understanding the compiler cannot place anything in a different section such as rodata unless this is explicitly requested with an attribute (i.e. `__attribute__(( section(".rodata") ))` or a macro call which resolves to this).
Thanks,