linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x driver

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: <65e4c9936f95a23ad56498ac198fd4df35eb8fd6.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 26 Nov 2021 11:19:05 +0100
From:   Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x
 driver

Hi Horatiu,

On Fri, 2021-11-26 at 10:05 +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
[...]
> +static int lan966x_reset_switch(struct lan966x *lan966x)
> +{
> +	struct reset_control *reset;
> +	int val = 0;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	reset = devm_reset_control_get_shared(lan966x->dev, "switch");
> +	if (IS_ERR(reset))
> +		return dev_err_probe(lan966x->dev, PTR_ERR(reset),
> +				     "Could not obtain switch reset");
> +	reset_control_reset(reset);
> +
> +	reset = devm_reset_control_get_shared(lan966x->dev, "phy");
> +	if (IS_ERR(reset))
> +		return dev_err_probe(lan966x->dev, PTR_ERR(reset),
> +				     "Could not obtain phy reset\n");
> +	reset_control_reset(reset);

In general, please request all resources before activating the hardware.
Here I'd request both reset controls first and only then trigger them.
That way a failure to optain the phy reset won't cause an unnecessary
switch reset.

[...]
> +static int lan966x_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

If there is nothing to do here, this function can be removed altogether.

regards
Philipp