[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e2305e5-6b04-4032-8a71-dd24db04ddab@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 15:44:07 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk,
kabel@...nel.org, hkallweit1@...il.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/4] net: phy: marvell10g: Add LED support for
88X3310
> +static int mv3310_led_funcs_from_flags(struct mv3310_led *led,
> + unsigned long flags,
> + enum mv3310_led_func *solid,
> + enum mv3310_led_func *blink)
> +{
> + unsigned long activity, duplex, link;
> +
> + if (flags & ~(BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_LINK) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_HALF_DUPLEX) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_FULL_DUPLEX) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_TX) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_RX)))
> + return -EINVAL;
This probably should be -EOPNOTSUPP. The trigger will then do the
blinking in software.
> +
> + link = flags & BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_LINK);
> +
> + duplex = flags & (BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_HALF_DUPLEX) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_FULL_DUPLEX));
> +
> + activity = flags & (BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_TX) |
> + BIT(TRIGGER_NETDEV_RX));
> +
> + if (link && duplex)
> + return -EINVAL;
It is an odd combination, but again, if the hardware cannot do it,
return -EOPNOTSUPP and leave it to the software.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists