[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e956c670-a6f5-474c-bed5-2891bb04d7d5@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 13:40:56 +0530
From: Bhanu Seshu Kumar Valluri <bhanuseshukumar@...il.com>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Thangaraj.S@...rochip.com,
Rengarajan.S@...rochip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+62ec8226f01cb4ca19d9@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: usb: lan78xx: Fix lost EEPROM read timeout
error(-ETIMEDOUT) in lan78xx_read_raw_eeprom
On 01/10/25 13:12, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 10:07:21AM +0530, Bhanu Seshu Kumar Valluri wrote:
>> On 01/10/25 06:09, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2025 14:19:02 +0530 Bhanu Seshu Kumar Valluri wrote:
>>>> + if (dev->chipid == ID_REV_CHIP_ID_7800_) {
>>>> + int rc = lan78xx_write_reg(dev, HW_CFG, saved);
>>>> + /* If USB fails, there is nothing to do */
>>>> + if (rc < 0)
>>>> + return rc;
>>>> + }
>>>> + return ret;
>>>
>>> I don't think you need to add and handle rc here separately?
>>> rc can only be <= so save the answer to ret and "fall thru"?
>>
>> The fall thru path might have been reached with ret holding EEPROM read timeout
>> error status. So if ret is used instead of rc it might over write the ret with 0 when
>> lan78xx_write_reg returns success and timeout error status would be lost.
>
> Ack, I see. It may happen if communication with EEPROM will fail. The same
> would happen on write path too. Is it happened with real HW or it is
> some USB emulation test? For me it is interesting why EEPROM is timed
> out.
The sysbot's log with message "EEPROM read operation timeout" confirms that EEPROM read
timeout occurring. I tested the same condition on EVB-LAN7800LC by simulating
timeout during probe.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists