[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190524131048.GA2979@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 15:10:48 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
Cc: "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com" <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
"olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net: phy: Guard against the presence of
a netdev
> > Hi Ioana
> >
> > Looking at the functions changed here, they seem to be related to phy_attach(),
> > phy_connect(), and phy_detach() etc. Is the intention you can call these
> > functions and pass a NULL pointer for the net_device?
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Yes, the intention is exactly to pass a NULL pointer for the net_device from PHYLINK.
> The changes that do this are in "[RFC,net-next,5/9] net: phylink: Add phylink_create_raw".
Hi Ioana
I think in general, we don't want MAC drivers doing this.
We should enforce that the general APIs get a netdev. PHYLINK uses
phy_attach_direct() which is the lowest level of these attach() and
connect() calls. And there is only one MAC driver using
phy_attach_direct(). So please add checks for the netdev and return
-EINVAL in these higher level callers to phy_attach_direct().
Thanks
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists