From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E52E19DF62; Sun, 10 May 2026 12:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778417522; cv=none; b=VUiLo6h9w7S5+iMXycBVO25ZGt5ay5lmISUWe3yIVwrO6EYBYFZeD9X4uDQOYc6NYY+d2AG3VN3I8A6awxmP23b8aGWEKJWbh80/UAAuPbTc3DUgSpieRkJ7oS+oIGVTazLagWWnUnUnd6gqba1QepWmIDqinohOd7Edjn/ws5g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778417522; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2DvbnoTQCS7Wsxem7vg1TUbb+5RuywPoURhAB4F046E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XHTNY26A3t5IMZYjxKsPjUBcoLvG7eeie+Mqajdo7S3z1kiLcaYZLLthrh5/Q357gdwlSYQfuZv9KgaknFBrCGBnqki9w8xAiW11/07DgP49KJo9YupCt+rqh/y8GZHA5hTyGeTUa/sfMgFXYJm31FXMZ+4x6CDOuEQuH7MuJ24= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=EGN1L8ij; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="EGN1L8ij" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1778417521; x=1809953521; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=2DvbnoTQCS7Wsxem7vg1TUbb+5RuywPoURhAB4F046E=; b=EGN1L8ijQz4nXCYevfuJkcvLQsmupHpiZUji6CBuhrwb9I4xITM4vc0j 3BaI95LXZFuVcS8hhVzJI8O0ZHuRD1CgXhUyhJVilNHS7JFbpeZ//v9Ue /PA7cjPXutU8Cj1OwtiWH8+ToRD6KDTs9Myk2bm+Pp0Q0DSAtbehqMMEA 5z30xPA0TX+myjR84Yv7uQ2gln/9HSGXI/zARHRHFv3U/+eVexBNtquaz 9wIhC7xYj1PvjoECFdTOIkEvckq5RSXBpMZhFaa90svZn4LRDvMTatxr0 iyjzHTSdDWzzW6qwpETqKYrC91ruP+fg+dAI8E18GRvVtfH0+7nHgzHAo w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: NvtG/YsHQN6O30CWvqXJnA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: qjO6Tn7BSnWZbU/+aL0fXg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11781"; a="89632183" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,227,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="89632183" Received: from fmviesa006.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.146]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 May 2026 05:52:00 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9984BpVGQIysUJuhcmIG/w== X-CSE-MsgGUID: R1gWf7xvQjKEOatdPl2yzg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.23,227,1770624000"; d="scan'208";a="232738753" Received: from dhhellew-desk2.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.244.171]) by fmviesa006-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 May 2026 05:51:57 -0700 Date: Sun, 10 May 2026 15:51:54 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Vinod Koul Cc: Peng Fan , linux-can@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Marc Kleine-Budde , Vincent Mailhol , Neil Armstrong , Josua Mayer , Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] phy: phy-can-transceiver: Ad-hoc cleanups and refactoring Message-ID: References: <20260504070054.29508-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-can@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Sun, May 10, 2026 at 04:21:38PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 04-05-26, 08:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The driver does two things that need to be addressed: > > - includes subject to remove gpio.h > > - checks for error code from device property APIs when it can be done in > > a robust way > > > > This series addresses the above and adds a couple of additional refactoring. > > Sashiko flagged some issues, some of them not introduced by this, can > you please check this: > > https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260504070054.29508-1-andriy.shevchenko%40linux.intel.com "Could this result in a null pointer dereference if device_get_match_data() returns null?" Yes, it sounds legit but not introduced here. "In the original code, the warning was suppressed when the property was missing because err evaluated to -EINVAL. Now, if the property is absent, max_bitrate is explicitly set to 0 in the else block, which then unconditionally triggers this warning." True, but I don't know which is better here, I consider that it's good to inform user about default being used as a fallback. I can change this back to the original logic. What do you prefer? The third one is the repetition of the first one (see above). TL;DR: The only one legitimated question is about a (new old) warning. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko