[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250905125220.mhy7ln4ufhg4onwo@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 15:52:20 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
"maintainer:MICROCHIP LAN966X ETHERNET DRIVER" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: enforce phy-mode presence
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 01:38:34PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> The documentation for lan966x states that phy-mode is a required
> property but the code does not enforce this. Add an error check.
>
> Fixes: db8bcaad5393 ("net: lan966x: add the basic lan966x driver")
> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> index 7001584f1b7a..5d28710f4fd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c
> @@ -1199,6 +1199,9 @@ static int lan966x_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> continue;
>
> phy_mode = fwnode_get_phy_mode(portnp);
> + if (phy_mode)
> + goto cleanup_ports;
It's not really great to submit bug fixes without testing them.
/**
* fwnode_get_phy_mode - Get phy mode for given firmware node
* @fwnode: Pointer to the given node
*
* The function gets phy interface string from property 'phy-mode' or
* 'phy-connection-type', and return its index in phy_modes table, or errno in
* error case.
*/
The test you add will only pass for phy-mode = "", where phy_mode will
be PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA. Otherwise, it will be a negative error code,
or a positive phy_interface_t value, and both will result in a "goto
cleanup_ports".
What is the impact of the problem? What happens without your fix?
> +
> err = lan966x_probe_port(lan966x, p, phy_mode, portnp);
> if (err)
> goto cleanup_ports;
> --
> 2.51.0
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists