[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b72e0572-6000-478a-b125-93f079944ace@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 17:15:50 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Boon Khai Ng <boon.khai.ng@...era.com>,
Alexis Lothoré <alexis.lothore@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] net: altera-tse: Read core revision before
registering netdev
On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> The core revision is used in .ndo_open(), so we have to populate it
> before regstering the netdev.
All that open does is:
if ((priv->revision < 0xd00) || (priv->revision > 0xe00))
netdev_warn(dev, "TSE revision %x\n", priv->revision);
So i agree this does not need a Fixes: tag.
But i do wounder why this is in open. The revision has already been
printed once in probe. Are values < 0xd00 or > 0xe00 significant? Is
this left over code and some actions that were previously here are now
gone?
Maybe a better fix is to remove this, and make revision local in
probe?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists