[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91eda093-0adc-4fa4-9b36-5c71d71d98b0@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 16:13:38 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Buday Csaba <buday.csaba@...lan.hu>
Cc: 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: [PATCH 1/2] net: mdio: common handling of phy reset properties
> +/**
> + * mdio_device_register_reset - Read and initialize the reset properties of
> + * an mdio device
> + * @mdiodev: mdio_device structure
> + */
> +int mdio_device_register_reset(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> +{
> + struct reset_control *reset;
> +
> + /* Read optional firmware properties */
> + fwnode_property_read_u32(dev_fwnode(&mdiodev->dev), "reset-assert-us",
> + &mdiodev->reset_assert_delay);
> + fwnode_property_read_u32(dev_fwnode(&mdiodev->dev), "reset-deassert-us",
> + &mdiodev->reset_deassert_delay);
> +
device_property_read_u32() would be better here. But i can see why you
kept fwnode_property_read_u32() it makes it easier to see that there
have not been any code changes. So maybe add a patch 2/3 to convert
this?
> +/**
> + * mdio_device_unregister_reset - uninitialize the reset properties of
> + * an mdio device
> + * @mdiodev: mdio_device structure
> + */
> +int mdio_device_unregister_reset(struct mdio_device *mdiodev)
> +{
> + gpiod_put(mdiodev->reset_gpio);
> + reset_control_put(mdiodev->reset_ctrl);
Both of these return void, so you should make this function a void as
well.
Andrew
---
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists