Thread (32 messages) 32 messages, 6 authors, 2018-05-14

Re: [PATCH net-next v2 01/13] net: phy: sfp: make the i2c-bus property really optional

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-05-04 17:03:34
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, lkml

On 05/04/2018 06:56 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The SFF,SFP documentation is clear about making all the DT properties,
with the exception of the compatible, optional. In practice this is not
the case and without an i2c-bus property provided the SFP code will
throw NULL pointer exceptions.

This patch is an attempt to fix this.

Signed-off-by: Antoine Tenart <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/phy/sfp.c | 12 ++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
index 4ab6e9a50bbe..4686c443fc22 100644
--- a/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
+++ b/drivers/net/phy/sfp.c
@@ -298,11 +298,17 @@ static void sfp_set_state(struct sfp *sfp, unsigned int state)
 
 static int sfp_read(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len)
 {
+	if (!sfp->read)
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
-ENODEV would be closer to the intended meaning IMHO, those this could
be argue that this is yet another color to paint the bikeshed with.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+
 	return sfp->read(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len);
 }
 
 static int sfp_write(struct sfp *sfp, bool a2, u8 addr, void *buf, size_t len)
 {
+	if (!sfp->write)
+		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+
 	return sfp->write(sfp, a2, addr, buf, len);
 }
 
@@ -533,6 +539,8 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_hpower(struct sfp *sfp)
 		return 0;
 
 	err = sfp_read(sfp, true, SFP_EXT_STATUS, &val, sizeof(val));
+	if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP)
+		goto err;
 	if (err != sizeof(val)) {
 		dev_err(sfp->dev, "Failed to read EEPROM: %d\n", err);
 		err = -EAGAIN;
@@ -542,6 +550,8 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_hpower(struct sfp *sfp)
 	val |= BIT(0);
 
 	err = sfp_write(sfp, true, SFP_EXT_STATUS, &val, sizeof(val));
+	if (err == -EOPNOTSUPP)
+		goto err;
 	if (err != sizeof(val)) {
 		dev_err(sfp->dev, "Failed to write EEPROM: %d\n", err);
 		err = -EAGAIN;
@@ -565,6 +575,8 @@ static int sfp_sm_mod_probe(struct sfp *sfp)
 	int ret;
 
 	ret = sfp_read(sfp, false, 0, &id, sizeof(id));
+	if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
+		return ret;
Can you find a way such that only sfp_sm_mod_probe() needs to check
whether the sfp read/write operations returned failure and then we just
make sure the SFP state machine does not make any more progress? Having
to check the sfp_read()/sfp_write() operations all over the place sounds
error prone and won't scale in the future.
-- 
Florian
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help