On Fri, 9 Oct 2020 09:20:30 +0200 Marek Vasut wrote: > > Can you describe your problem in detail? > > Yes, I tried to do that in the commit message and the extra detailed > comment above the code. What exactly do you not understand from that?
Why it's not bound on the first open (I'm guessing it's the first open that has the ndev->phydev == NULL? I shouldn't have to guess). > > To an untrained eye this looks pretty weird. > > I see, I'm not quite sure how to address this comment. If ndev->phydev sometimes is not-NULL on open, then that's a valid state to be in. Why not make sure that we're always in that state and can depend on ndev->phydev rather than rummaging around for the phy_device instance.
