Re: [PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach_direct() instead

2020-09-08 Thread David Miller
From: Yoshihiro Shimoda Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 20:27:20 +0900 > @@ -1423,6 +1419,10 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev, struct > phy_device *phydev, > if (err) > goto error; > > + ret = phy_disable_interrupts(phydev); > + if (ret) > + return

Re: [PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach_direct() instead

2020-09-08 Thread kernel test robot
Hi Yoshihiro, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on linus/master] [also build test ERROR on v5.9-rc4 next-20200903] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https

Re: [PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach_direct() instead

2020-09-08 Thread kernel test robot
Hi Yoshihiro, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on linus/master] [also build test ERROR on v5.9-rc4 next-20200908] [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in https

[PATCH] net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach_direct() instead

2020-09-08 Thread Yoshihiro Shimoda
Since the micrel phy driver calls phy_init_hw() as a workaround, the commit 9886a4dbd2aa ("net: phy: call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_init_hw()") disables the interrupt unexpectedly. So, call phy_disable_interrupts() in phy_attach_direct() instead. Otherwise, the phy cannot link up after the et