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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e459ad06-e261-91a0-1c42-d9135b9ca6b5@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 09:17:19 -0700 From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 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 BehĂșn <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 On 5/11/23 03:26, Paolo Abeni wrote: > 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; Yes probe needs to be successful if bcm54xx_phy_can_wakeup() returns false, will change to return 0 to make that clearer. Thanks! -- Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists