[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210624152716.GA29313@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:27:17 +0800
From: Wong Vee Khee <vee.khee.wong@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ling Pei Lee <pei.lee.ling@...el.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>,
weifeng.voon@...el.com, vee.khee.wong@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: marvell10g: enable WoL for mv2110
Hi Russell,
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 09:06:18PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 09:09:29PM +0800, Ling Pei Lee wrote:
> > +static void mv2110_get_wol(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ethtool_wolinfo *wol)
> > +{
> > + int ret = 0;
>
> This initialiser doesn't do anything.
>
> > +
> > + wol->supported = WAKE_MAGIC;
> > + wol->wolopts = 0;
> > +
> > + ret = phy_read_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_VEND2, MV_V2_WOL_CTRL);
> > +
> > + if (ret & MV_V2_WOL_MAGIC_PKT_EN)
> > + wol->wolopts |= WAKE_MAGIC;
>
> You need to check whether "ret" is a negative number - if phy_read_mmd()
> returns an error, this test could be true or false. It would be better
> to have well defined behaviour (e.g. reporting that WOL is disabled?)
>
> > + /* Reset the clear WOL status bit as it does not self-clear */
> > + ret = phy_clear_bits_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_VEND2,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CTRL,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CLEAR_STS);
> > +
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > + } else {
> > + /* Disable magic packet matching & reset WOL status bit */
> > + ret = phy_modify_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_VEND2,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CTRL,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_MAGIC_PKT_EN,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CLEAR_STS);
> > +
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + ret = phy_clear_bits_mmd(phydev, MDIO_MMD_VEND2,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CTRL,
> > + MV_V2_WOL_CLEAR_STS);
> > +
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
>
> This phy_clear_bits_mmd() is the same as the tail end of the other part
> of the if() clause. Consider moving it after the if () { } else { }
> statement...
>
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
>
> and as all paths return "ret" just do:
>
> return phy_clear_bits_mmd(...
>
> I will also need to check whether this is the same as the 88x3310, but
> I'm afraid I don't have the energy this evening - please email me a
> remind to look at this tomorrow. Thanks.
>
Shall we add this for the 88x3310 as well?
BR,
VK
Powered by blists - more mailing lists