[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329154109.GF5069@bicker>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:41:09 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
To: giulio.benetti@...ronovasrl.com
Cc: grant.likely@...retlab.ca, jeremy.kerr@...onical.com,
afleming@...escale.com, jezz@...mic.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] of: check for IS_ERR()
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:54:20AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:49:41 +0300
>
> > get_phy_device() can return an ERR_PTR()
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
> > ---
> > I don't have a cross compile environment set up so I can't even compile
> > test this. :/ But err.h is included so it should be OK.
>
> It should return ERR_PTR() consistently. Checking for both
> NULL and ERR_PTR() is undesirable.
Hi Giulio,
get_phy_device() currently returns NULL because of: 3ee82383f0098a2 "phy:
fix phy address bug". If I change it to return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV) that
will mean we break out of the loop with an error in mdiobus_register()
where before we would just continue on.
drivers/net/phy/mdio_bus.c
119 phydev = mdiobus_scan(bus, i);
120 if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
121 err = PTR_ERR(phydev);
122 goto error;
123 }
Is that OK?
I'm not really familiar with this hardware at all, I'm just going based
on static analysis. :/
regards,
dan carpenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists