Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: phy: marvell-88q2xxx: Prevent reading temperature with asserted reset

[Dimitri Fedrau <dima.fedrau@gmail.com>]

Hi Andrew,

Am Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 02:21:23PM +0100 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 07:33:10PM +0100, Dimitri Fedrau wrote:
> > If the PHYs reset is asserted it returns 0xffff for any read operation.
> > Prevent reading the temperature in this case and return with an I/O error.
> > Write operations are ignored by the device.
> 
> I think the commit message could be improved. Explain why the PHY
> reset would be asserted. You are saying it is because the interface is
> admin down. That is a concept the user is more likely to understand.
> 
Will improve the commit message.

> > Fixes: a197004cf3c2 ("net: phy: marvell-88q2xxx: Fix temperature measurement with reset-gpios")
> 
> Is this really a fix? My personal reason for this change was
> architecture, it seemed odd to probe the hwmon device in one spot and
> then enable it later. But is it really broken? Stable rules say:
> 
>   It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID
> 
That's fine for me. I don't think it is something that is really
bothering people. Will remove the fixes tag and switch to net-next.
Thanks for pointing out.

> > Signed-off-by: Dimitri Fedrau <dima.fedrau@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/phy/marvell-88q2xxx.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/marvell-88q2xxx.c b/drivers/net/phy/marvell-88q2xxx.c
> > index 30d71bfc365597d77c34c48f05390db9d63c4af4..c1ae27057ee34feacb31c2e3c40b2b1769596408 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/marvell-88q2xxx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/marvell-88q2xxx.c
> > @@ -647,6 +647,12 @@ static int mv88q2xxx_hwmon_read(struct device *dev,
> >  	struct phy_device *phydev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >  	int ret;
> >  
> > +	/* If the PHYs reset is asserted it returns 0xffff for any read
> > +	 * operation. Return with an I/O error in this case.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (phydev->mdio.reset_state == 1)
> > +		return -EIO;
> 
> Maybe ENETDOWN is better?
>
That is way better than EIO, so users could actually know why the sensor
doesn't return the temperature. Thanks again.

Best regards,
Dimitri Fedrau