From: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
Hi Heiner,
> On 22.01.2019 23:45, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 10:30:21 +0100
> >
> >> It was reported that on a system with nfsboot and w/o initramfs network
> >> fails because trying to load the PHY driver returns -ENOENT. Reason was
> >> that due to missing initramfs the modprobe binary isn't available.
> >> So we have to ignore error code -ENOENT.
> >>
> >> Fixes: 13d0ab6750b2 ("net: phy: check return code when requesting PHY
> >> driver module")
> >> Reported-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallwe...@gmail.com>
> >
> > Applied.
> >
> > However, I agree with Geert that we should adopt the:
> >
> > if (module_not_present)
> > request_module();
> > if (module_not_present)
> > goto failed_to_load;
> >
> > pattern.
>
> I know this is the standard pattern for request_module().
> Unfortunately the situation is a little bit tricky with PHY drivers.
> We don't know whether there's a module matching the PHY ID and
> it's a valid use case that there's no such module.
> In such a case we bind the genphy driver later, and a lot of PHY's
> are totally happy with the genphy driver and therefore no dedicated
> PHY drivers exist.
Currently, if request_module() fails (for whatever reason, except
-ENOENT), you don't bind to the genphy driver, but propagate an
error[*], leaving the user without network interface.
Is that better than ignoring the error, and binding to the genphy
driver?
When do you expect the phy-specific driver to become available, if
ever?
[*] The actual error code returned by request_module(), and not
-EPROBE_DEFER. The latter may sound attractive, as it is meant to
cause a retry later, but has its own set of problems with optional
drivers that may never become available (e.g. missing drivers for
DMA controllers).
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
