netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ethernet: stmmac: dwmac-rk: Add GMAC support for RK3576

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240827133550.19c9eee4@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 13:35:50 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Detlev Casanova <detlev.casanova@...labora.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
 Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Alexandre
 Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
 Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, David Wu
 <david.wu@...k-chips.com>, Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ethernet: stmmac: dwmac-rk: Add GMAC support for
 RK3576

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 10:11:15 -0400 Detlev Casanova wrote:
> +static void rk3576_set_to_rgmii(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv,
> +				int tx_delay, int rx_delay)
> +{
> +	struct device *dev = &bsp_priv->pdev->dev;
> +	unsigned int offset_con;
> +
> +	if (IS_ERR(bsp_priv->grf) || IS_ERR(bsp_priv->php_grf)) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "Missing rockchip,grf or rockchip,php-grf property\n");
> +		return;
> +	}

Seems like there's plenty of precedent in this file, but seems a little
strange that we just print a message and carry on, without returning an
error.

Would be better to return an error or add some info to the ops
struct, so that the caller can check if the correct (of the two)
regmaps are set