[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <de37bf30-61dd-49f9-b645-2d8ea11ddb5d@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:16:12 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: simplify a check in phy_check_link_status
Handling case err == 0 in the other branch allows to simplify the
code. In addition I assume in "err & phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled"
it should have been a logical and operator. It works as expected also
with the bitwise and, but using a bitwise and with a bool value looks
ugly to me.
Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
---
drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
index c3a0a5ee5..c4236564c 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
@@ -985,10 +985,10 @@ static int phy_check_link_status(struct phy_device *phydev)
phydev->state = PHY_RUNNING;
err = genphy_c45_eee_is_active(phydev,
NULL, NULL, NULL);
- if (err < 0)
+ if (err <= 0)
phydev->enable_tx_lpi = false;
else
- phydev->enable_tx_lpi = (err & phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled);
+ phydev->enable_tx_lpi = phydev->eee_cfg.tx_lpi_enabled;
phy_link_up(phydev);
} else if (!phydev->link && phydev->state != PHY_NOLINK) {
--
2.44.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists