> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net: phy: Guard against the presence of > a > netdev > > > > Hi Ioana > > > > > > Looking at the functions changed here, they seem to be related to > > > phy_attach(), phy_connect(), and phy_detach() etc. Is the intention > > > you can call these functions and pass a NULL pointer for the net_device? > > > > > > Andrew > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Yes, the intention is exactly to pass a NULL pointer for the net_device > > from > PHYLINK. > > The changes that do this are in "[RFC,net-next,5/9] net: phylink: Add > phylink_create_raw". > > Hi Ioana > > I think in general, we don't want MAC drivers doing this. >
Agreed. > We should enforce that the general APIs get a netdev. PHYLINK uses > phy_attach_direct() which is the lowest level of these attach() and > connect() calls. And there is only one MAC driver using phy_attach_direct(). > So > please add checks for the netdev and return -EINVAL in these higher level > callers > to phy_attach_direct(). > Will add the checks in v2. -- Ioana
