[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260127190327.79d3f154@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:03:27 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Bastien Curutchet (Schneider Electric)" <bastien.curutchet@...tlin.com>
Cc: Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, "David
S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo
Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Pascal Eberhard <pascal.eberhard@...com>,
Miquèl Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, Thomas
Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/8] net: dsa: microchip: Add support for
KSZ8463 global irq
On Tue, 27 Jan 2026 10:06:43 +0100 Bastien Curutchet (Schneider
Electric) wrote:
> /* Read interrupt status register */
> - ret = ksz_read8(dev, kirq->reg_status, &data);
> + ret = ksz_read16(dev, kirq->reg_status, &data);
AI code review points out that we're potentially over-reading here for
!ksz_is_ksz8463(kirq->dev), I'm assuming the wider read is okay for all
chips? Is this something that'll be obvious to all readers of this code
or should we perhaps leave a relevant comment here? (assuming you need
to respin, not sure its worth a respin by itself)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists