[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241003222400.q46szutlnxivzrup@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 01:24:00 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] net: phy: Validate PHY LED OPs presence before
registering
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:12:48AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> Validate PHY LED OPs presence before registering and parsing them.
> Defining LED nodes for a PHY driver that actually doesn't supports them
> is wrong and should be reported.
What about the case where a PHY driver gets LED support in the future?
Shouldn't the current kernel driver work with future device trees which
define LEDs, and just ignore that node, rather than fail to probe?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists