[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241004081931.srnluq3f2gma6ohe@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:19:31 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: phy: Validate PHY LED OPs presence before
registering
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:51:32AM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:33:17AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 01:24:00AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:12:48AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > > Validate PHY LED OPs presence before registering and parsing them.
> > > > Defining LED nodes for a PHY driver that actually doesn't supports them
> > > > is wrong and should be reported.
> > >
> > > What about the case where a PHY driver gets LED support in the future?
> > > Shouldn't the current kernel driver work with future device trees which
> > > define LEDs, and just ignore that node, rather than fail to probe?
> >
> > Well this just skip leds node parse and return 0, so no fail to probe.
> > This just adds an error. Maybe I should use warn instead?
>
> Yes, a phydev_warn() would be better.
I'm thinking even KERN_WARN is too much. There's nothing actionable
about the message.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists