From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756793AbcAJCs4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:48:56 -0500 Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:46280 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756669AbcAJCsz (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 21:48:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/2] net: tc35815: Fix build error due to missed API change To: Andrew Lunn References: <1452374494-18752-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20160109213614.GC6877@lunn.ch> <5691808A.1010301@roeck-us.net> <20160109220924.GF6877@lunn.ch> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <5691C695.1080703@roeck-us.net> Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 18:48:53 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160109220924.GF6877@lunn.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated_sender: linux@roeck-us.net X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - bh-25.webhostbox.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - roeck-us.net X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: bh-25.webhostbox.net: authenticated_id: linux@roeck-us.net X-Authenticated-Sender: bh-25.webhostbox.net: linux@roeck-us.net X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/09/2016 02:09 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>> Hi Guenter >>> >>> You fix looks right, but i'm wondering about the code which is being >>> fixed. >>> >>> How can phydev ever evaluate to true, given the break statement? Can >>> this code every detect multiple PHYs? I think not. >>> >>> Either the break needs to be removed, or we just replace the whole lot >>> with phy_find_first(). >>> >> >> Hi Andrew, >> >> you are right, the current code is pretty pointless. >> >> I would suggest to use phy_find_first(). > > Me too. > >> Should I submit a separate patch, or replace my patch with v2 ? > > I say a v2 which uses phy_find_first() and include in the changelog > why the current code is pointless and so the change to > phy_find_first(). > Ok, I'll do that. Guenter