From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 23:30:17 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] net: ravb: Fix NULL pointer access
In-Reply-To: <TYBPR01MB530979323BFA3681AC59F83686210@TYBPR01MB5309.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20200915141038.3371-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
 <0ae44ba9-0781-906d-537e-f1e115ccd903@gmail.com>
 <TYBPR01MB530979323BFA3681AC59F83686210@TYBPR01MB5309.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <e786bdb3-e5c9-c214-5249-9f12714fd266@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 9/16/20 5:43 PM, Biju Das wrote:
> Hi Marek,

Hi,

[...]

>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ravb.c
>>> @@ -438,7 +438,8 @@ static int ravb_config(struct udevice *dev)
>>>
>>>  writel(mask, eth->iobase + RAVB_REG_ECMR);
>>>
>>> -phy->drv->writeext(phy, -1, 0x02, 0x08, (0x0f << 5) | 0x19);
>>> +if (phy->drv->writeext)
>>> +phy->drv->writeext(phy, -1, 0x02, 0x08, (0x0f << 5) | 0x19);
>>
>> Shouldn't we rather move this into the PHY driver altogether ?
> 
> If I fix, the phydriver with empty function, compiler will complain about unused parameter right?
> What about other phy's which doesn't have this callback.

I mean, should we not move this entire code which configures something
in a Micrel PHY, and is specific to Micrel PHY, into the Micrel PHY
driver and remove the whole call of writeext from this ethernet driver ?

>> I _think_ this might be specific to some Micrel PHY.
> As mentioned in the commit message, it is seen with Realtek phy(rtl8211e)  and crash seen on Hihope RZ/G2M board.
Right, because that writeext seems to be micrel-phy specific.