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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180809104653.GV99251@atomide.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Aug 2018 03:46:53 -0700
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        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

* 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?

> 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.

Regards,

Tony