[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55DE1735.3070106@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:44:53 -0500
From: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] smsc911x: Ignore error return from
device_get_phy_mode()
On 08/26/2015 01:49 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Check the return value from device_property_read_u32() to see if there
> is a suitable firmware interface to read the data, and abort if not.
> The function should return -ENXIO in that case; however, it returns
> -ENODATA. Check for both.
>
> Fixes: 62ee783bf1f8 ("smsc911x: Fix crash seen if neither ACPI nor OF is configured or used")
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---
> Needs testing. RFC because I am not sure if the -ENODATA check is acceptable.
I'm not really sure about it myself. I can think of cases where it might
cause problems. That said it does work in an ACPI environment with or
without the _DSD block. If the DSD/property isn't set, obviously the
device doesn't configure (but it doesn't crash either) so that is good
and an overall improvement for ACPI.
Also, I personally might have hoisted the reg-io-width ahead of the
device_get_phy_mode() and removed the phy checks, but I don't imagine
there is much functional difference at this point.
Tested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
--
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