[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200119175109.GB17720@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 18:51:09 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Realtek linux nic maintainers <nic_swsd@...ltek.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: phy: add generic ndo_do_ioctl handler
phy_do_ioctl
Hi Heiner
> Almost all drivers have the running check. I found five that don't:
>
> *ag71xx, fec_mpc52xx*
> They don't have the running check but should, because the PHY is
> attached in ndo_open only.
So long an ndo_close() sets the phydev pointer to NULL, it should be
safe. But do the drivers do this?
> *agere, faraday, rdc*
> They don't have the running check and attach the PHY in probe.
>
> So yes, we could add a second helper w/o the running check, even if
> it's just for three drivers. There may be more in the future.
>
> > Do you plan to convert any more MAC drivers?
> >
> Not yet ;) Question would be whether one patch would be sufficient
> or whether we need one patch per driver that needs to be ACKed by
> the respective maintainer.
For this sort of mechanical change, i would do one patch for all
without running, and another with running. If any driver needs more
than a mechanical change, then do a patch per driver, and get the
maintainer involved.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists