# Re: \[PATCH net-next v9 03/15\] net: phy: Introduce phy related fwnode functions

- From: Rafael J. Wysocki \<rafael@kernel.org\>
- Date: 2021-06-11 12:32:05 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/06/1411240
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2021/06/1411144/t.md

```text
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Russell King (Oracle)
[ref] wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you want the above to be two if () statements instead of one?
> >
> > I would change the ordering anyway, that is
> >
> > if (!IS_ERR(phy_node) || is_acpi_node(fwnode))
> >         return phy_node;
> >
> > And I think that the is_acpi_node() check is there to return the error
> > code right away so as to avoid returning a "not found" error later.
> >
> > But I'm not sure if this is really necessary.  Namely, if nothing
> > depends on the specific error code returned by this function, it would
> > be somewhat cleaner to let the code below run if phy_node is an error
> > pointer in the ACPI case, because in that case the code below will
> > produce an error pointer anyway.
>
> However, that opens the door to someone shipping "working" ACPI with
> one of these names that we've taken the decision not to support on
> ACPI firmware. Surely, it's much better that we don't accept the
> legacy names so we don't allow such configurations to work.

Fair enough.
```