netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v4 5/6] phylink: introduce phylink_fwnode_phy

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]

Message-ID: <20200710140808.GA26486@lsv03152.swis.in-blr01.nxp.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 19:38:08 +0530
From:   Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Jon <jon@...id-run.com>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....nxp.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux.cj@...il.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v4 5/6] phylink: introduce
 phylink_fwnode_phy_connect()

On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:48:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:58 PM Calvin Johnson
> <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Define phylink_fwnode_phy_connect() to connect phy specified by
> > a fwnode to a phylink instance.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +       if (is_of_node(fwnode)) {
> > +               ret = phylink_of_phy_connect(pl, to_of_node(fwnode), flags);
> > +       } else if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) {
> > +               phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
> > +               if (!phy_dev)
> > +                       return -ENODEV;
> > +               ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);
> > +       }
> 
> Looking at this more I really don't like how this if-else-if looks like.
> 
> I would rather expect something like
> 
>                phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
>                if (!phy_dev)
>                        return -ENODEV;
>                ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);
> 
> Where phy_find_by_fwnode() will take care about OF or any other
> possible fwnode cases.

phy_find_by_fwnode() has a different purpose from that of
phylink_fwnode_phy_connect(). Current implementation looks good to me as it
clearly takes different paths for DT and ACPI cases.

Thanks
Calvin