[PATCH 01/17] miiphy: Introduce mdio_init()

[Marek Vasut]

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 at 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:
>>>
>>> 1) Introduce mdio_init().
>>>
>>> 2) Add mii member to struct bb_miiphy_bus.
>>>
>>> 3) 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 ?