On 02/08/2017 06:51 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Yes, this is what I am using right now:
>>
>> --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy_device.c
>> @@ -920,11 +920,6 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev,
>> struct phy_device *phydev,
>> return -EIO;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!try_module_get(d->driver->owner)) {
>> - dev_err(&dev->dev, "failed to get the device driver
>> module\n");
>> - return -EIO;
>> - }
>> -
>> get_device(d);
>>
>> /* Assume that if there is no driver, that it doesn't
>> @@ -946,6 +941,11 @@ int phy_attach_direct(struct net_device *dev,
>> struct phy_device *phydev,
>> goto error;
>> }
>>
>> + if (!try_module_get(d->driver->owner)) {
>> + dev_err(&dev->dev, "failed to get the device driver
>> module\n");
>> + return -EIO;
>> + }
>> +
>> if (phydev->attached_dev) {
>> dev_err(&dev->dev, "PHY already attached\n");
>> err = -EBUSY;
>>
>> Would you like me to submit this one?
>
> I'm just wondering about the get_device(d); Does the ordering matter
> here? Lets wait for Florian before submitting a patch.
I sent a fix for that last night:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/725522/
Sorry about that!
--
Florian
