On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:26:24PM -0500, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > Some ethernet drivers (like TI CPSW) may connect and manage >1 Net PHYs per > one netdevice, as result such drivers will produce warning during system > boot and fail to connect second phy to netdevice when PHYLIB framework > will try to create sysfs link netdev->phydev for second PHY > in phy_attach_direct(), because sysfs link with the same name has been > created already for the first PHY. As result, second CPSW external > port will became unusable. > > Fix it by relaxing error checking when PHYLIB framework is creating sysfs > link netdev->phydev in phy_attach_direct(), suppressing warning by using > sysfs_create_link_nowarn() and adding debug message instead. > > Cc: Florian Fainelli <[email protected]> > Fixes: a3995460491d ("net: phy: Relax error checking on sysfs_create_link()") > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c > index 478405e..fe16f58 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c > @@ -1012,10 +1012,17 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct > phy_device *phydev, > err = sysfs_create_link(&phydev->mdio.dev.kobj, &dev->dev.kobj, > "attached_dev"); > if (!err) { > - err = sysfs_create_link(&dev->dev.kobj, &phydev->mdio.dev.kobj, > - "phydev"); > - if (err) > - goto error; > + err = sysfs_create_link_nowarn(&dev->dev.kobj, > + &phydev->mdio.dev.kobj, > + "phydev"); > + if (err) { > + dev_err(&dev->dev, "could not add device link to %s err > %d\n", > + kobject_name(&phydev->mdio.dev.kobj), > + err);
dev_err() is not a "debugging" message :) What is a user going to do with this new error? If it's not important at all, why care about it? > + /* non-fatal - some net drivers can use one netdevice > + * with more then one phy > + */ What about devices that do not have more than one phy and this call fails for? Shouldn't you check for that? thanks, greg k-h
