From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 215A93A6411; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 02:51:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773111092; cv=none; b=BCYAzzioW6NxFFh2+9jZxsgO/5Za4QLIWpSQlMvfbjIiBrcOYzU//Lh00epGRxYcnoqF5xUMLMMT6fmXrHbkBLmych4a8dNUoILquBNkFwR/az9jUbs0FrT1027vSb7MA/VizHghe7IX1axtVQ+DfX3iUAQb9U9aSJ679ANKx0g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773111092; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QE8oSiIig2ZBt5EyS5zX1hfXhBg0DDje2u0pf2P1jq4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=dyGCwo0M9+1MOEKOQglK6LHyS0HHZuoEiPB7LsdmnAklbYWxpiDbfKjIEzOUTaWIpSJaNQcV6A/5TJYKAhI3BE0QzhmTezXKW3FC7r+gCatCSojS86OyYShM2Mk7QTsNfzhm3Ts7ivQMElO3eDBjDETzn/4JugtGPB70wnXckrw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=SnGUTqsQ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="SnGUTqsQ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A947C4CEF7; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 02:51:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1773111091; bh=QE8oSiIig2ZBt5EyS5zX1hfXhBg0DDje2u0pf2P1jq4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=SnGUTqsQQnSMButRD3adlkw0yCDl+ZoBL3Nj6a10VsC5q9dt1CDmvFjIpNi74bmWu +YPt8tkBDZqMGIuoM58l58MZLVDLWX8C8MCBhrPZM+iDLXegZiYvZ6AOxV321vDK9R U4P7w0bDAQ8Y3eadEkG9g1MiGc8BwEvUcFBffc5JhZ/rXrtar1xSJWIdAUmMo3NRnQ djMxMR7bJm/1kHEgG4VXFcL6UVH8XRAYj+mZlg87THcWrbGh91N/iLFUUMVt1hCNep 2Un2K33S0mW5DC7Kp6wZXPm6zGWANdlCDibRs0timM/kaWtBNKF7BvDRxvSPSfjt8s PqdqfkxtBPmGw== From: Jakub Kicinski To: rosenp@gmail.com Cc: Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com, Raju.Rangoju@amd.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (open list), pabeni@redhat.com, andrew+netdev@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net Subject: Re: [PATCHv2,net-next] net: xgbe: use device_get_mac_addr Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 19:51:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20260310025127.3751023-1-kuba@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.53.0 In-Reply-To: <20260307032227.640904-1-rosenp@gmail.com> References: <20260307032227.640904-1-rosenp@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. For local reproduction steps see https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-local.html --- net: xgbe: use device_get_mac_addr This commit refactors the MAC address retrieval code to use device_get_mac_address() instead of device_property_read_u8_array() with an explicit is_valid_ether_addr() check. It also removes the XGBE_MAC_ADDR_PROPERTY definition since the new function supports multiple MAC address properties. > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-platform.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-platform.c > index 47d53e59ccf6..f2db920fbaec 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-platform.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-platform.c > @@ -252,11 +252,9 @@ static int xgbe_platform_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > dev_dbg(dev, "sir1_regs = %p\n", pdata->sir1_regs); > > /* Retrieve the MAC address */ > - ret = device_property_read_u8_array(dev, XGBE_MAC_ADDR_PROPERTY, > - pdata->mac_addr, > - sizeof(pdata->mac_addr)); > - if (ret || !is_valid_ether_addr(pdata->mac_addr)) { > - dev_err(dev, "invalid %s property\n", XGBE_MAC_ADDR_PROPERTY); > + ret = device_get_mac_address(dev, pdata->mac_addr); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "invalid MAC address property\n"); > if (!ret) ^^^^^^^^ Is this check reachable? When execution enters the 'if (ret)' block above, ret is guaranteed to be non-zero, so the nested 'if (!ret)' condition can never be true. The old code needed 'if (!ret) ret = -EINVAL;' because device_property_read_u8_array() could return 0 with an invalid MAC address (checked by the !is_valid_ether_addr() part of the condition). The new device_get_mac_address() already returns an error when the MAC address is invalid, so this conversion is no longer needed and the condition can never execute. > ret = -EINVAL; > goto err_io; [ ... ] -- pw-bot: cr