From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fw2.prolan.hu (fw2.prolan.hu [193.68.50.107]) (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 4DAAB32F74A for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 06:31:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.68.50.107 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763706722; cv=none; b=MEnIoz/jkQorT92nJE5h7SHuFfKvGTjqSYDF4Jx5b1IS/+OxJXe9JZeimu23+1zNsEbzB+6Wi3eTNSoVM+Rnfqi4VDnqkNlaPPA08zVupUeokJNARFNJ5FGtbHIxKEuE6OFcPu31eajimaijo7I1QFZaS6/V0bWv6zIUS8jg8iY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763706722; c=relaxed/simple; bh=A8G7TP69kECO+1gwzAdFDb+eJTaB6RV03QIkYqGegZQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Disposition; b=uG+JB0lggFjpyUCcQvU3E0ShJj4za0N1z0ZbiFKrmfwWWCkC8qhizXYXFFTQQMvy7Pg+j4Unaekgi7j5cCrravBh7mK899z2gpHRxAe4pjYcNSMIlAHBBR+ZQdjxGLZc5kGut6TDK2ZiJlpEiExQCCH1fy1+JoCCGznjB2fDa/8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=prolan.hu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=prolan.hu; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=prolan.hu header.i=@prolan.hu header.b=Na7DWAKw; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.68.50.107 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=prolan.hu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=prolan.hu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (4096-bit key) header.d=prolan.hu header.i=@prolan.hu header.b="Na7DWAKw" Received: from proxmox-mailgw.intranet.prolan.hu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-mailgw.intranet.prolan.hu (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0CA74A0CC8 for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 07:31:49 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=prolan.hu; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:from:from:message-id :mime-version:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=mail; bh=A8G7TP6 9kECO+1gwzAdFDb+eJTaB6RV03QIkYqGegZQ=; b=Na7DWAKwm4Ly6ohd0BFySEa fY0TboBCfzINa6RbPGcD/GNoxsgtJaRfWPiyyvINBvaXQ6sPebxc2rgjCh9sYcoh F/SGbz2PxY0nYYeLpm167t769GnBqpIg1WnXye1L+iSAbL08xAThnNBJ1nC0Dej+ bUEoDs5nyqCjvlGmjOskLkT35Re36bp02W07PXOLtVXiH777daNl0/uxwTAhGz+m X1Qb/7DNATVxfBVCJJCRNswQvIpp+1zXKVPVj5ybH0vGRbAC7qn4VyslIJPT7K/l qu1/vLAdJPATFVLvf2RMSFDuesm7bLRASadQuzwT7zpD3FiV+0F6lTbmXgPs5xO4 FSkjCZ1g4ls5p3nE6pW8lNPMpfL3KZKNchE0bjGMfeqt3cMZgZsk+2QEVp+I5YHN kkKt/+l4JDTFxYhYUH4z9MIKPBCAyng63r9ykbvgNIyjhNvwjBx2OAqVkxYe9y81 1iE4P6VKdRNa9jXdE3LSBdwn0gfixw385NJJGN7QK2ilHGEotldhmlUy+6vm4HUg qcocoPbD3HM3AbfkFr6h+MK1prU9fQ1HWNdACoKS1F28enyWhwNeX74YPCINt27T BJchRr7TvZu0gH03oHJNfudlFnjY6M+8ott202V4MT3/GYH08uAkm2+r1PC1SwbU fx+g1ACKfZ21D+YMrCUs= Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 07:31:48 +0100 From: Buday Csaba To: Subject: [Question] Return value of mii_bus->write() Message-ID: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline X-ESET-AS: R=OK;S=0;OP=CALC;TIME=1763706708;VERSION=8002;MC=3771310116;ID=105653;TRN=0;CRV=0;IPC=;SP=0;SIPS=0;PI=3;F=0 X-ESET-Antispam: OK X-EsetResult: clean, is OK X-EsetId: 37303A296767155F60756A I am preparing a patch to eliminate kernel-doc warnings in mdio_device.c and mdio_bus.c I have ran into an ambiguity: what is mii_bus->write() supposed to return on success? Documentation/networking/phy.txt does not give any information about it, neither does the kdoc in include/linux/phy.h. It is clear that 0 is treated as success, and a negative indicates failure. The reference implementation also follows this convention. But the code in mdio_bus.c, for example: __mdiobus_modify_changed(), seems to also expect positive return values from write(). Is there any other implementation that allows positive return values for success? Should it be mentioned in kernel-doc? Thanks, Csaba