On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:12:46AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

First, I'll say I'm on a very short fuse today; no dinner last night,
at the hospital up until 5:30am, and a fucking cold caller rang the door
bell at 10am this morning. Just fucking our luck.

Sorry to hear that.

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:18:44AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

quoted

Isn't it sufficient to set pl->pcs to NULL when pcs_enable() fails and
after calling pcs_disable(), though?

No. We've already called mac_prepare(), pcs_pre_config(),
pcs_post_config() by this time, we're past the point of being able to
unwind.

I'm set out to resolve a much smaller problem.

Calling it a full "unwind" is perhaps a bit much, because pcs_pre_config()
and pcs_post_config() don't have unwinding equivalents, unlike how
pcs_enable() has pcs_disable(). I don't see what API convention would be
violated if phylink decided to drop a PCS whose enable() returned an error.

Similarly, the fact we don't have to whom to report an error code
doesn't make it pointless to offer the guarantee that pcs_disable() will
be called only when pcs_enable() has succeeded.  It is only the latter
that seems necessary in order to develop reliable complexity on top of
these.

If SerDes PHY integration in phylink_pcs drivers is a model to follow
for other drivers, I think the way in which balanced calls can be made
from pcs_enable()/pcs_disable() needs to be given more attention.
And I think it's a bit worse than "doesn't matter, the port is dead
anyway".  For example, we can have QSGMII where 4 PCSes share a single
SerDes lane, so one single malfunctioning PCS instance can affect all
the others through the lane's phy->power_count.