netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: marvell10g: set the PHY in low power by default

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, 28 Feb 2019 15:44:50 +0100
From:   Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        linux@...linux.org.uk, f.fainelli@...il.com, hkallweit1@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
        gregory.clement@...tlin.com, miquel.raynal@...tlin.com,
        nadavh@...vell.com, stefanc@...vell.com, ymarkman@...vell.com,
        mw@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: phy: marvell10g: set the PHY in low
 power by default

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 03:22:43PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c | 13 ++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c b/drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c
> > index e5d098bd33a6..765edd34a7dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/marvell10g.c
> > @@ -245,17 +245,8 @@ static int mv3310_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		return ret;
> >  
> > -	return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int mv3310_suspend(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > -{
> > -	return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int mv3310_resume(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > -{
> > -	return mv3310_hwmon_config(phydev, true);
> 
> 
> I'm confused.
> 
> Didn't patch 1 just add suspend and resume callback? And here you are
> removing some other suspend and resume callbacks? Did we have two sets
> for a short while?

Indeed. I just check and what happened is I initially had the
suspend/resume callbacks implementation and this patch into the same
patch. And then I made a mistake when splitting them, leaving two
suspend/resume functions, and I did not see that when reviewing the
series...

Sorry about that, I'll fix it!

Thanks,
Antoine

-- 
Antoine Ténart, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com