[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:51:14 +0000
From: <Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com>
To: <privat@...l-hjelmeland.no>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
<vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Move tag setup to
new lan9303_setup_tagging
> > Specific reason to use val then using
> LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE_SPECIAL_TAG_PORT0
> > like previous line?
> >
> Specific reason was to please a reviewer that did not like my
> indenting in first version. I did not agree with him, but since
> nobody else spoke up, I changed the code.
Got it. Missed previous patch/comment.
> >> @@ -644,6 +648,10 @@ static int lan9303_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + ret = lan9303_setup_tagging(chip);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to setup port tagging %d\n", ret);
> >> +
> > Still move on when error happens?
> >
> Good question. I just followed the pattern from the original function,
> which was not made by me. Actually I did once reflect on whether this
> was the correct way. Perhaps it could be argued that it is better to
> allow the device to come up, so the problem can be investigated?
Maybe depends on severity of setting?
BTW, lan9303_setup() still returns ZERO at the end?
Thanks.
Woojung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists