On 04/29/2016 05:46 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
Hi!
> On 04/29/2016 02:45 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>
>>> 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 :)
>
> I know, I'm just supposed to work on different things. :-)
>
>>> 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.
>
> It's been merged long ago. Actually, I've just run this script from
> the current Linus' tree on your patch, here's the results:
Oh, got it now.
> ERROR: Please use git commit description style 'commit <12+ chars of
> sha1> ("<title line>")' - ie: 'commit fatal: bad o ("cc5d109451c0d5b17")'
> #4:
> Since commit b74766a0a0feeef5c779709cc5d109451c0d5b17 in linux-next,
>
> WARNING: 'immediatelly' may be misspelled - perhaps 'immediately'?
> #23:
> 'if (IS_ERR(phydev))' condition and the loop exits immediatelly if the
>
> total: 1 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 8 lines checked
Ha, this is embarrassing .
>> 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.
>
> I'll let DaveM decide.
OK
>>>> 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 :)
>
> Again, let DaveM decide. But I don't think the code being patched
> uses parens in such cases... I wouldn't, for sure.
>
>> Thanks for the review!
>
> You've saved me some work (but I still need to analyze the other call
> paths).
If there is something you want to test on the stmmac, let me know.
>>> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
