From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:59:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] net/fec: change phy-reset-gpio request warning to debug message In-Reply-To: <20110921124423.GI28907@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> References: <1316603432-20032-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1316603432-20032-2-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20110921112555.GE1966@pengutronix.de> <20110921120341.GG28907@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <20110921121159.GG1966@pengutronix.de> <20110921124423.GI28907@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20110921125905.GI1966@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > > I agree that keeping it int is way better. But why not add it now to > > keep things proper and tested? If this patch gets accepted as it is and > > later someone else will add error checking to the caller, your platform > > will lose FEC support as a regression. > > > Again, fec_reset_phy() failure is not a show-stopper. We might not > want to make the probe fail because of that. That would be an argument to make the function returning void? Well, I still think something like /* No phy reset configured */ if (phy_reset == -ENODEV) return 0; might be cleaner, yet I don't have the setup to test such an approach. So, I'll be quiet now and hope for no problems. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: