On 04/29/2016 01:18 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
Hi!
> First of all, thank you for the patch!
> You beat me to it (and not only me). :-)
Heh, hacking at night has it's perks :)
> On 4/29/2016 4:09 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
>> Since commit b74766a0a0feeef5c779709cc5d109451c0d5b17 in linux-next,
>> ( phylib: don't return NULL from get_phy_device() ), phy_get_device()
>
> scripts/checkpatch.pl now enforces certain commit citing style, yours
> doesn't quite match it.
Ha, I didn't know that checkpatch can now warn about this too, nice. Is
that in next already ? I just tried checkpatch and it doesn't warn about it.
Anyway, regarding this format, do you want V2 ? Originally, I had the
full commit info in the message, but that was just taking space and
it is not the commit which is important in the message, so I trimmed
it down.
>> will return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) instead of NULL if the PHY device ID is
>> all ones.
>>
>> This causes problem with stmmac driver and likely some other drivers
>> which call mdiobus_register(). I triggered this bug on SoCFPGA MCVEVK
>> board with linux-next 20160427 and 20160428. In case of the stmmac, if
>> there is no PHY node specified in the DT for the stmmac block, the stmmac
>> driver ( drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_mdio.c function
>> stmmac_mdio_register() ) will call mdiobus_register() , which will
>> register the MDIO bus and probe for the PHY.
>>
>> The mdiobus_register() resp. __mdiobus_register() iterates over all of
>> the addresses on the MDIO bus and calls mdiobus_scan() for each of them,
>> which invokes get_phy_device(). Before the aforementioned patch, the
>> mdiobus_scan() would return NULL if no PHY was found on a given address
>> and mdiobus_register() would continue and try the next PHY address. Now,
>> mdiobus_scan() returns ERR_PTR(-ENODEV), which is caught by the
>> 'if (IS_ERR(phydev))' condition and the loop exits immediatelly if the
>> PHY address does not contain PHY.
>>
>> Repair this by explicitly checking for the ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) and if this
>> error comes around, continue with the next PHY address.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
>> Cc: David S. Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
>> Cc: Dinh Nguyen <dingu...@opensource.altera.com>
>> Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> NOTE: I don't quite like this explicit check , but I don't have better
>> idea now.
>
> It's fine. I was going to do just the same :-)
OK, I'm glad I'm not alone on this one :)
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c b/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
>> index 499003ee..388f992 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
>> @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ int __mdiobus_register(struct mii_bus *bus, struct
>> module *owner)
>> struct phy_device *phydev;
>>
>> phydev = mdiobus_scan(bus, i);
>> - if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
>> + if (IS_ERR(phydev) && (PTR_ERR(phydev) != -ENODEV)) {
>
> Parens around the second operand of && are not really needed though...
While I agree, I also prefer to make things obvious when reading the
code by adding the parenthesis. It's a matter of taste I think. Just let
me know if I should spin V2 without them :)
Thanks for the review!
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
