Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dwmac-rk: No need to check the return value of phy_power_on()

[Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Lizhe wrote:
> 'phy_power_on' is a local scope one within the driver, since the
> return value of the phy_power_on() function is always 0, checking
> its return value is redundant.
> 
> the function name 'phy_power_on()' conflicts with the existing
> phy_power_on() function in the PHY subsystem. a suitable alternative
> name would be rk_phy_power_set(), particularly since when the
> second argument is false, this function actually powers off the PHY

This is two changes. I would lean towards splitting it into
two patches (in a single patch-set).

> 
> Signed-off-by: Lizhe <sensor1010@163.com>

Also, in future, please wait 24h between posting revisions of a patchset.
And note revisions in the subject, like this:

  Subject: [PATCH net-next v2] ...

https://docs.kernel.org/process/maintainer-netdev.html

> ---
>  .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c    | 19 +++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> index 51ea0caf16c1..ac3324430b2d 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-rk.c
> @@ -1461,23 +1461,18 @@ static int gmac_clk_enable(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv, bool enable)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static int phy_power_on(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv, bool enable)
> +static void rk_phy_power_set(struct rk_priv_data *bsp_priv, bool enable)
>  {
>  	struct regulator *ldo = bsp_priv->regulator;
>  	struct device *dev = bsp_priv->dev;
> -	int ret;
>  
>  	if (enable) {
> -		ret = regulator_enable(ldo);
> -		if (ret)
> +		if (regulator_enable(ldo))
>  			dev_err(dev, "fail to enable phy-supply\n");
>  	} else {
> -		ret = regulator_disable(ldo);
> -		if (ret)
> +		if (regulator_disable(ldo))
>  			dev_err(dev, "fail to disable phy-supply\n");

The 'ret' changes above don't relate to the patch description.
I'd leave this be. But if you really want to go this way
I think it would be a separate patch.

>  	}
> -
> -	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  static struct rk_priv_data *rk_gmac_setup(struct platform_device *pdev,

-- 
pw-bot: changes-requested