[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55DE27BD.600@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:55:25 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: Steve Glendinning <steve.glendinning@...well.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] smsc911x: Fix crash seen if neither ACPI nor OF
is configured or used
Hi Tony,
On 08/26/2015 01:16 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[ ... ]
>> We may need two separate patches, one to fix up device_property_read_u32()
>> to return -ENXIO, and one to fix smsc911x_probe_config() to ignore the error
>> from device_get_phy_mode(), and to bail out if device_property_read_u32()
>> returns -ENXIO.
>
> I guess the device_property_read_u32() change needs to be discussed
> separately.. So probably best to fix up the regression to smsc911x
> first.
>
Not sure myself. Jeremy has a point - we don't really know for sure how
safe it is to check for -ENODATA (in addition to -ENXIO). Also, fixing
device_property_read_u32() turned out to be much easier than I thought.
>> The simpler alternative would be to check the return value from
>> device_property_read_u32() for both -ENXIO and -ENODATA.
>> This would make the code independent of the necessary core changes
>> (which may take a while). I tested this variant, and it works, at least
>> for the non-DT case.
>>
>> Does this make sense ?
>
> Yeh I think that would allow fixing up the smsc911x regression while
> discussing the device_property_read_u32() change. Got a test patch
> for me to try?
>
You should have two by now to choose from.
Guenter
--
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