> +static u64 aqr107_get_stat(struct phy_device *phydev, int index)
> +{
> + const struct aqr107_hw_stat *stat = aqr107_hw_stats + index;
> + int len_l = min(stat->size, 16);
> + int len_h = stat->size - len_l;
> + u64 ret;
> + int val;
> +
> + val = phy_read_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_C22EXT, stat->reg);
> + if (val < 0) {
> + phydev_err(phydev, "Reading HW Statistics failed\n");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + ret = val & GENMASK(len_l - 1, 0);
> + if (len_h) {
> + val = phy_read_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_C22EXT, stat->reg + 1);
> + if (val < 0) {
> + phydev_err(phydev, "Reading HW Statistics failed\n");
> + return 0;
Hi Heiner
When things go wrong, it seems to be reasonably normal to return
U64_MAX, not zero. It is such a large value that is raises questions,
where as 0 might be considered a correct value, not an error.
> +static void aqr107_get_stats(struct phy_device *phydev,
> + struct ethtool_stats *stats, u64 *data)
> +{
> + u64 *pstats = phydev->priv;
This seems like a trap waiting for somebody to fall into.
It would be more future proof to define a struct which just contains
an array.
Andrew
