net: dsa: mv88e6060: cleanup and fix setup

This patchset introduces somes fixes and a registers addressing cleanup for the mv88e6060 DSA driver.

The first patch removes the poll_link as mv88e6xxx.
The 3 following patchs fixes the setup in regards of the datasheet. The 2 last patches introduces a clean header and replaces all magic values.

Neil Armstrong (6):
net: dsa: mv88e6060: remove poll_link callback
net: dsa: mv88e6060: use the correct InitReady bit
net: dsa: mv88e6060: use the correct MaxFrameSize bit
net: dsa: mv88e6060: use the correct bit shift for mac0
net: dsa: mv88e6060: add register defines header file
net: dsa: mv88e6060: replace magic values with register defines

 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.c | 114 +++++++++++++++-----------------------------
 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.h | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 146 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6060.h

1.9.1

Hi Neil

Nice patchset. Once you have fixed Sergei's comment, it looks good to go.

Andrew

Hi Neil,

Nice cleanup. I'll just be a bit picky here, so you may not consider my comment for this patchset, but maybe for the future ones. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no reason to group all these patches together.

The first 4 patches are independent fixes, and thus could have been sent separately to netdev -net.

Then the last 2 ones could have been squashed together, because I don't see a real value to seperate them since you duplicate some defines, e.g. REG_PORT. And this patch would be a candidate for netdev -net-next.

Thanks,
-v

Hi Vivien,

I understand your point of view, and it really makes sense.

But the first patch has a dependency on the DSA cleanup patchset, so if I follow your point, I should submit 3 patchsets with a single patchset for the poll_link complete removal. But the two other patchsets will have a strong dependency on the poll_link removal...

This question is on which version of mv88e6060 and dsa should I base the cleanup patchset ? before of after the poll_link removal ?

For the fixes, they are not critical at all, net-next would be enough.

Any advice is welcome at this point....

Thanks !

Neil