[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aW9VjieyiZCNbb-G@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 10:14:38 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
davem@...emloft.net, maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com,
alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, mohd.anwar@....qualcomm.com,
neil.armstrong@...aro.org, hkallweit1@...il.com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
andrew@...n.ch, pabeni@...hat.com, andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [net-next,05/14] net: stmmac: add stmmac core serdes support
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:42:27AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> More to the point, if dwmac_integrated_pcs_enable() fails at
> dwmac_serdes_power_on() (thus, the SerDes is _not_ powered on), by your
> own admission of this PCS calling convention, sooner or later
> dwmac_integrated_pcs_disable() -> dwmac_serdes_power_off() will still be
> called, leading to a negative phy->power_count.
>
> That is to say, if the model is "irrespective of whether pcs_enable()
> succeeds or fails mid way, pcs_disable is called anyway()", then these
> methods are not prepared to handle that reliably.
That's the way it currently is, and it's been this way in the
major_config path for a very long time. If anything fails in that
path, we can't report the error back up to anyone, and the netdev
is effectively dead.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists