Hi Sergei,
On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 23:53 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 09/07/2015 11:50 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>
> > Current implementation via IS_ERR(phydev) may make no sense because
> > of_phy_attach() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
> >
> > Still for checking result of phy_connect() IS_ERR() is useful.
> >
> > To address both situations we use combined IS_ERR_OR_NULL() check.
> >
> > Cc: Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavall...@st.com>
> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
> > Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtyl...@cogentembedded.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrod...@synopsys.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes compared to v1:
> > * Use IS_ERR_OR_NULL() instead of discrete checks for null and err
> >
> > drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > index 864b476..7985d8a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c
> > @@ -837,7 +837,7 @@ static int stmmac_init_phy(struct net_device *dev)
> > interface);
> > }
> >
> > - if (IS_ERR(phydev)) {
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(phydev)) {
> > pr_err("%s: Could not attach to PHY\n", dev->name);
> > return PTR_ERR(phydev);
>
> Hm, in case of phydev == NULL, you're going to return 0 here... is that
> what you want?
Ah, right.
So then the question would be what's a proper error code for !phydev:
-ENOENT or -ENODEV?
-Alexey--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
