From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: Fix phy_modify() semantic difference fallout Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 15:35:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1515496281-10988-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20180109141008.GD27447@lunn.ch> <20180109142248.GG17719@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Andrew Lunn , Geert Uytterhoeven , "David S . Miller" , Florian Fainelli , netdev , Linux-Renesas , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Russell King - ARM Linux Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180109142248.GG17719@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and >> > (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while >> > (__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY register value. >> > >> > Apparently this change was catered for in drivers/net/phy/marvell.c, but >> > not in other source files. >> > >> > Hence genphy_restart_aneg() now returns 4416 instead zero, which is >> > considered an error: >> > >> > ravb e6800000.ethernet eth0: failed to connect PHY >> > IP-Config: Failed to open eth0 >> > IP-Config: No network devices available >> > >> > Fix this by converting positive values to zero in all callers of >> > phy_modify(). >> > >> > Fixes: fea23fb591cce995 ("net: phy: convert read-modify-write to phy_modify()") >> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven >> > --- >> > Alternatively, __phy_modify() could be changed to follow __phy_write() >> > semantics? >> >> Hi Geert, Russell >> >> I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses >> of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it >> return 0 on success seems like a better fix. > > I'd like to avoid that, because I don't want to have yet another > accessor that needs to be used for advertisment modification (where > we need to know if we changed any bits.) > > That's why this accessor returns the old value. Can I consider that to be an Acked-by for my patch? ;-) Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds