[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160109213614.GC6877@lunn.ch>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 22:36:14 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] net: tc35815: Fix build error due to missed
API change
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 01:21:33PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Commit 7f854420fbfe ("phy: Add API for {un}registering an mdio device to
> a bus") introduces an API to access mii_bus structures, but missed to
> update the tc35815 driver. This results in the following error message.
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c: In function 'tc_mii_probe':
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c:617:18: error:
> 'struct mii_bus' has no member named 'phy_map'
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c:623:24: error:
> 'struct mii_bus' has no member named 'phy_map'
>
> Fixes: 7f854420fbfe ("phy: Add API for {un}registering an mdio device to a bus")
> Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c
> index fed5e3dfbc8f..5b5e7dcf9a99 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/toshiba/tc35815.c
> @@ -614,13 +614,16 @@ static int tc_mii_probe(struct net_device *dev)
>
> /* find the first phy */
> for (phy_addr = 0; phy_addr < PHY_MAX_ADDR; phy_addr++) {
> - if (lp->mii_bus->phy_map[phy_addr]) {
> + struct phy_device *tmp_phy;
> +
> + tmp_phy = mdiobus_get_phy(lp->mii_bus, phy_addr);
> + if (tmp_phy) {
> if (phydev) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: multiple PHYs found\n",
> dev->name);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> - phydev = lp->mii_bus->phy_map[phy_addr];
> + phydev = tmp_phy;
> break;
> }
> }
Hi Guenter
You fix looks right, but i'm wondering about the code which is being
fixed.
How can phydev ever evaluate to true, given the break statement? Can
this code every detect multiple PHYs? I think not.
Either the break needs to be removed, or we just replace the whole lot
with phy_find_first().
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists