Hello everybody,

I'm a little confused. Is this patch causing any trouble?

On 08/10/2017 12:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 14:47 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
From: Gustavo A R Silva <garsi...@embeddedor.com>

Check return value from call to e1e_wphy(). This value is being
checked during previous calls to function e1e_wphy() and it seems
a check was missing here.

The use of "it seems" here is less than compelling.

This is one of the first patches I sent. Maybe I should have added a note saying that this patch needed some testing, as I don't have the hardware to test it.

Perhaps the write of 0x3140 to MII_BMCR takes too long for
the return value used.

Many other uses of e1e_wphy.*MII_BMCR are also not checked.

For instance: the e100e/ethtool uses.

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c 
@@ -2437,6 +2437,8 @@ static s32 e1000_hv_phy_workarounds_ich8lan(struct 
e1000_hw *hw)
                if (hw->phy.revision < 2) {
                        ret_val = e1e_wphy(hw, MII_BMCR, 0x3140);
+                       if (ret_val)
+                               return ret_val;

Gustavo A. R. Silva

Reply via email to