I think you can also be more aggressive and remove the checks:
if (!master)
return -EINVAL;
from dsa_port_send and dsa_port_recv. At least it sounds broken to me
that this could ever happen.
The following comment got me curious:
/*
* stop master only if it's active, don't probe it otherwise.
* Under normal usage it would be active because we're using it, but
* during tear-down it may have been removed ahead of us.
*/
if (master && device_active(master))
eth_get_ops(master)->stop(master);
Do we actually care about device removal? I don't think it will work
right now.
If you do "unbind eth 0" and then using a DSA port you'll get a
panic. The check for master doesn't really help here because
it will return "priv->master_dev" which is just set in .pre_probe().
Thus in the error case, it will contain a dangling pointer.
-michael
