[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ijr8jhuyJDDS8n=8L53R26rtnYHmO-g7S7gdLXH+P3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:31:38 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Ioana Ciornei <ciorneiioana@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@....com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>,
Pieter Jansen Van Vuuren <pieter.jansenvv@...boosystems.io>,
Jon <jon@...id-run.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@....nxp.com>,
Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@....com>,
Florin Laurentiu Chiculita <florinlaurentiu.chiculita@....com>,
Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@....com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux.cj" <linux.cj@...il.com>,
Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@....com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/15] net: phy: Introduce phy related fwnode functions
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you want the above to be two if () statements instead of one?
> >
> > I would change the ordering anyway, that is
> >
> > if (!IS_ERR(phy_node) || is_acpi_node(fwnode))
> > return phy_node;
> >
> > And I think that the is_acpi_node() check is there to return the error
> > code right away so as to avoid returning a "not found" error later.
> >
> > But I'm not sure if this is really necessary. Namely, if nothing
> > depends on the specific error code returned by this function, it would
> > be somewhat cleaner to let the code below run if phy_node is an error
> > pointer in the ACPI case, because in that case the code below will
> > produce an error pointer anyway.
>
> However, that opens the door to someone shipping "working" ACPI with
> one of these names that we've taken the decision not to support on
> ACPI firmware. Surely, it's much better that we don't accept the
> legacy names so we don't allow such configurations to work.
Fair enough.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists