netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: phy: broadcom: Add support for Wake-on-LAN

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8aebd38cf057cf659d5133527f55e1ced0e6f70c.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 12:26:34 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Doug Berger <opendmb@...il.com>, Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>,  Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit
 <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Marek
 Behún <kabel@...nel.org>, Peter Geis
 <pgwipeout@...il.com>, Frank <Frank.Sae@...or-comm.com>, open list
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: phy: broadcom: Add support for
 Wake-on-LAN

Hi,

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 15:34 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> @@ -821,7 +917,28 @@ static int bcm54xx_phy_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
>  	if (IS_ERR(priv->ptp))
>  		return PTR_ERR(priv->ptp);
>  
> -	return 0;
> +	/* We cannot utilize the _optional variant here since we want to know
> +	 * whether the GPIO descriptor exists or not to advertise Wake-on-LAN
> +	 * support or not.
> +	 */
> +	wakeup_gpio = devm_gpiod_get(&phydev->mdio.dev, "wakeup", GPIOD_IN);
> +	if (PTR_ERR(wakeup_gpio) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> +		return PTR_ERR(wakeup_gpio);
> +
> +	if (!IS_ERR(wakeup_gpio)) {
> +		priv->wake_irq = gpiod_to_irq(wakeup_gpio);
> +		ret = irq_set_irq_type(priv->wake_irq, IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* If we do not have a main interrupt or a side-band wake-up interrupt,
> +	 * then the device cannot be marked as wake-up capable.
> +	 */
> +	if (!bcm54xx_phy_can_wakeup(phydev))
> +		return ret;

AFAICS, as this point 'ret' is 0, so the above is confusing. Do you
intend the probe to complete successfully? If so, would not be
better/more clear:

		return 0;

?

Thanks,

Paolo