netdev - Re: [PATCH v3] net: ethernet: support "fixed-link" DT node on nb8800 driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 05 Feb 2016 15:26:30 +0000
From:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To:	Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: ethernet: support "fixed-link" DT node on nb8800 driver

Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net> writes:

> On 02/05/2016 04:08 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 02/05/2016 03:34 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>>>> Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>
>>>>
>>>> Please change the subject to something like "net: ethernet: nb8800:
>>>> support fixed-link DT node" and add a comment body.
>>>
>>> The subject is pretty explicit for such a simple patch, what else
>>> could I add that wouldn't be unnecessary chat?
>>
>> It's customary to include a description body even if it's little more
>> than a restatement of the subject.  Also, while the subject usually only
>> says _what_ the patch does, the body should additionally state _why_ it
>> is needed.
>
> I understand, but _why_ it is needed is also obvious in this case; I
> mean, without the patch "fixed-link" cannot be used.

Then say so.

> Other patches may not be as obvious/simple and thus justify and
> require more details.
>
> Anyway, I added "Properly handles the case where the PHY is not connected
> to the real MDIO bus" would that be ok?

Have you read Documentation/SubmittingPatches?  Do so (again) and pay
special attention to section 2 "Describe your changes."

>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>>>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>>>>> index ecc4a33..e1fb071 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/aurora/nb8800.c
>>>>> @@ -1460,7 +1460,19 @@ static int nb8800_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>    		goto err_disable_clk;
>>>>>    	}
>>>>>
>>>>> -	priv->phy_node = of_parse_phandle(pdev->dev.of_node, "phy-handle", 0);
>>>>> +	if (of_phy_is_fixed_link(pdev->dev.of_node)) {
>>>>> +		ret = of_phy_register_fixed_link(pdev->dev.of_node);
>>>>> +		if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "bad fixed-link spec\n");
>>>>> +			goto err_free_bus;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +		priv->phy_node = of_node_get(pdev->dev.of_node);
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	if (!priv->phy_node)
>>>>> +		priv->phy_node = of_parse_phandle(pdev->dev.of_node,
>>>>> +						  "phy-handle", 0);
>>>>> +
>>>>>    	if (!priv->phy_node) {
>>>>>    		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no PHY specified\n");
>>>>>    		ret = -ENODEV;
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.1.4
>>>>
>>

-- 
Måns Rullgård