netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: cpsw-phy-sel: prefer phandle for phy sel and update binding

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 17:47:59 -0500
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ethernet: cpsw-phy-sel: prefer phandle for phy sel
 and update binding



On 08/09/2018 05:46 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> [180808 13:52]:
>> * Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> [180808 12:02]:
>>>
>>> Do you need to handle EPROBE_DEFER here? The phandle points to a
>>> device which has not yet been loaded? I'm not sure exactly where it
>>> will be returned, maybe it is bus_find_device(), but i expect to see
>>> some handling of it somewhere in this function.
> 
> If no device is found the driver just produces a warning currently.
> And in that case cpsw attempts to continue with bootloader settings.
> 
> And looking at the caller function cpsw_slave_open() it also just
> produces warnings for phy_connect() too..
> 
> I agree that in general this this whole pile of cpsw related drivers sure
> could use some better error handling. Starting with making cpsw_slave_open()
> and cpsw_phy_sel() return errors instead of just ignoring them might be a
> good start.
> 
> Grygorii, care to add that note of things to do into your cpsw maintainer
> hat?

Right. EPROBE_DEFER not supported for this module as of now.

> 
>> With the proper interconnect hierarchy in the device tree there should be
>> no EPROBE_DEFER happening here as the interconnects are probed in the
>> right order with the always on interrupt with system control module first :)
>>
>> But then again, adding support for EPROBE_DEFER here won't hurt either,
>> will take a look.
> 
> I'll just add some notes about that to the patch description considering
> the above.

thanks Tony.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii