From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] smsc911x: Fix crash seen if neither ACPI nor OF is configured or used Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 13:55:25 -0700 Message-ID: <55DE27BD.600@roeck-us.net> References: <1439844336-21596-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20150826170410.GP4215@atomide.com> <55DE069C.7000402@roeck-us.net> <20150826201628.GU4215@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150826201628.GU4215@atomide.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Steve Glendinning , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeremy Linton , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi Tony, On 08/26/2015 01:16 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: [ ... ] >> We may need two separate patches, one to fix up device_property_read_u32() >> to return -ENXIO, and one to fix smsc911x_probe_config() to ignore the error >> from device_get_phy_mode(), and to bail out if device_property_read_u32() >> returns -ENXIO. > > I guess the device_property_read_u32() change needs to be discussed > separately.. So probably best to fix up the regression to smsc911x > first. > Not sure myself. Jeremy has a point - we don't really know for sure how safe it is to check for -ENODATA (in addition to -ENXIO). Also, fixing device_property_read_u32() turned out to be much easier than I thought. >> The simpler alternative would be to check the return value from >> device_property_read_u32() for both -ENXIO and -ENODATA. >> This would make the code independent of the necessary core changes >> (which may take a while). I tested this variant, and it works, at least >> for the non-DT case. >> >> Does this make sense ? > > Yeh I think that would allow fixing up the smsc911x regression while > discussing the device_property_read_u32() change. Got a test patch > for me to try? > You should have two by now to choose from. Guenter