linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] phy: Add configuration interface

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]

Message-ID: <20180907090129.yg5m5h7ocoow5xbv@flea>
Date:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 11:01:29 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>,
        Krzysztof Witos <kwitos@...ence.com>,
        Rafal Ciepiela <rafalc@...ence.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] phy: Add configuration interface

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +int phy_configure(struct phy *phy, enum phy_mode mode,
> > > > +		  union phy_configure_opts *opts)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!phy)
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!phy->ops->configure)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't you report an error to the caller ? If a caller expects the PHY to 
> > > be configurable, I would assume that silently ignoring the requested 
> > > configuration won't work great.
> > 
> > I'm not sure. I also expect a device having to interact with multiple
> > PHYs, some of them needing some configuration while some other do
> > not. In that scenario, returning 0 seems to be the right thing to do.
> 
> You could return -EOPNOTSUPP. That is common in the network stack. The
> caller then has the information to decide if it should keep going, or
> return an error.

Ok, that works for me then.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)