[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231221183145.31c167c0@device-28.home>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 18:31:45 +0100
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni
<pabeni@...hat.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy
<christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>, Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Heiner Kallweit
<hkallweit1@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>, Jesse Brandeburg
<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Marek
Behún <kabel@...nel.org>, Piergiorgio Beruto
<piergiorgio.beruto@...il.com>, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Nicolò Veronese <nicveronese@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/13] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Target the
command to the requested PHY
Hi Andrew,
Sorry I forgot to reply to that one...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:58:30 +0100
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 06:12:32PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > PSE and PD configuration is a PHY-specific command. Instead of targeting
> > the command towards dev->phydev, use the request to pick the targeted
> > PHY device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
> > ---
> > V4: No changes
> > V3: No changes
> > V2: New patch
> >
> > net/ethtool/pse-pd.c | 14 +++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c b/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > index cc478af77111..0d9cd9c87104 100644
> > --- a/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > +++ b/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > @@ -31,17 +31,10 @@ const struct nla_policy ethnl_pse_get_policy[ETHTOOL_A_PSE_HEADER + 1] = {
> > [ETHTOOL_A_PSE_HEADER] = NLA_POLICY_NESTED(ethnl_header_policy),
> > };
> >
> > -static int pse_get_pse_attributes(struct net_device *dev,
> > +static int pse_get_pse_attributes(struct phy_device *phydev,
> > struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> > struct pse_reply_data *data)
> > {
> > - struct phy_device *phydev = dev->phydev;
> > -
> > - if (!phydev) {
> > - NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "No PHY is attached");
> > - return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > - }
> > -
>
> It would be good to say in the commit message why it is safe to remove
> this.
That's a good catch, this removal is wrong and will be put back in the
next iteration.
> > @@ -132,7 +124,7 @@ ethnl_set_pse(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info, struct genl_info *info)
> > /* this values are already validated by the ethnl_pse_set_policy */
> > config.admin_cotrol = nla_get_u32(tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL]);
> >
> > - phydev = dev->phydev;
> > + phydev = req_info->phydev;
> > if (!phydev) {
> > NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, "No PHY is attached");
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> So you removed one test, but this one stays?
Thanks for the review,
Maxime
Powered by blists - more mailing lists