[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231208184652.k2max4kf7r3fgksg@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:46:52 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
Cc: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>,
Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@...stell8.be>,
mithat.guner@...ont.com, erkin.bozoglu@...ont.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 07/15] net: dsa: mt7530: do not run
mt7530_setup_port5() if port 5 is disabled
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 07:23:38AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 08:40:15PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > We could be more pragmatic about this whole sparse false positive warning,
> > and just move the "if" block which calls mt7530_setup_port5() right
> > after the priv->p5_intf_sel assignments, instead of waiting to "break;"
> > from the for_each_child_of_node() loop.
> >
> > for_each_child_of_node(dn, mac_np) {
> > if (!of_device_is_compatible(mac_np,
> > "mediatek,eth-mac"))
> > continue;
> >
> > ret = of_property_read_u32(mac_np, "reg", &id);
> > if (ret < 0 || id != 1)
> > continue;
> >
> > phy_node = of_parse_phandle(mac_np, "phy-handle", 0);
> > if (!phy_node)
> > continue;
> >
> > if (phy_node->parent == priv->dev->of_node->parent) {
> > ret = of_get_phy_mode(mac_np, &interface);
> > if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
> > of_node_put(mac_np);
> > of_node_put(phy_node);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > id = of_mdio_parse_addr(ds->dev, phy_node);
> > if (id == 0)
> > priv->p5_intf_sel = P5_INTF_SEL_PHY_P0;
> > if (id == 4)
> > priv->p5_intf_sel = P5_INTF_SEL_PHY_P4;
> >
> > if (priv->p5_intf_sel == P5_INTF_SEL_PHY_P0 || <---- here
> > priv->p5_intf_sel == P5_INTF_SEL_PHY_P4)
> > mt7530_setup_port5(ds, interface);
>
> This doesn't solve the problem that Smatch doesn't know what the
> original value of priv->p5_intf_sel. And also I don't like this code
> because now we call mt7530_setup_port5() on every iteration after
> we find the first P5_INTF_SEL_PHY_P0.
You seem to have not parsed the "break" from 4 lines below. There is at
most one iteration through for_each_child_of_node().
And why would the "original" value of priv->p5_intf_sel matter? Original
or modified by the "if (id == 0)" and "if (id == 4)" blocks, the code
has already executed the of_get_phy_mode(&interface) call, by the time
we reach the "if" that calls mt7530_setup_port5().
Hmm, maybe the problem, all along, was that we let the -ENODEV return
code from of_get_phy_mode() pass through? "interface" will really be
uninitialized in that case. It's not a false positive.
Instead of:
ret = of_get_phy_mode(mac_np, &interface);
if (ret && ret != -ENODEV) {
...
return ret;
}
it should have been like this, to not complain:
ret = of_get_phy_mode(mac_np, &interface);
if (ret) {
...
return ret;
}
> > }
> > of_node_put(mac_np);
> > of_node_put(phy_node);
> > break;
> > }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists