[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63727423-9d19-40d1-b8d3-7c292529b16f@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 21:03:37 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Stefano Radaelli <stefano.radaelli21@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Xu Liang <lxu@...linear.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: add driver for MaxLinear MxL86110 PHY
> +static void mxl86110_get_wol(struct phy_device *phydev, struct ethtool_wolinfo *wol)
> +{
> + int value;
> +
> + wol->supported = WAKE_MAGIC;
> + wol->wolopts = 0;
> + value = mxl86110_locked_read_extended_reg(phydev, MXL86110_EXT_WOL_CFG_REG);
> +static int mxl86110_led_hw_control_set(struct phy_device *phydev, u8 index,
> + unsigned long rules)
..
> + ret = mxl86110_locked_write_extended_reg(phydev, MXL86110_LED0_CFG_REG + index, val);
Why are these two special and use the _locked_ variant, when all the
others don't?
Please think about locking, when can unlocked versions be used? When
should they not be used?
Are you testing this with CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING enabled?
Please also take a read of:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html
https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Andrew
---
pw-bot: cr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists