lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v2 01/13] net: phy: sfp: make the i2c-bus property really optional
From
Date
On 05/04/2018 06:56 AM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> 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 <antoine.tenart@bootlin.com>
> ---
> 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.

> +
> 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-04 19:04    [W:0.226 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site