Message ID | 20201020034558.19438-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: serdes link without phy | expand |
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:45:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > +void mv88e6123_serdes_get_regs(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, void *_p) > +{ > + u16 *p = _p; > + u16 reg; > + int i; > + > + if (mv88e6xxx_serdes_get_lane(chip, port) == 0) > + return; > + > + for (i = 0; i < 26; i++) { > + mv88e6xxx_phy_read(chip, port, i, ®); Shouldn't this deal with a failed read in some way, rather than just assigning the last or possibly uninitialised value to p[i] ?
On 20/10/20 11:18 pm, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:45:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: >> +void mv88e6123_serdes_get_regs(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, void *_p) >> +{ >> + u16 *p = _p; >> + u16 reg; >> + int i; >> + >> + if (mv88e6xxx_serdes_get_lane(chip, port) == 0) >> + return; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < 26; i++) { >> + mv88e6xxx_phy_read(chip, port, i, ®); > Shouldn't this deal with a failed read in some way, rather than just > assigning the last or possibly uninitialised value to p[i] ? mv88e6390_serdes_get_regs() and mv88e6352_serdes_get_regs() also ignore the error. The generic mv88e6xxx_get_regs() memsets p[] to 0xff so if the serdes_get_regs functions just left it alone we'd return 0xffff which is probably better than repeating the last value although it's still ambiguous because 0xffff is a valid value for plenty of these registers. Since it looks like I need to come up with an alternative to patch #1 I'll concentrate on that but making the serdes_get_regs() a little more error tolerant is a cleanup I can easily tack on onto this series.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 09:24:04PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > > On 20/10/20 11:18 pm, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:45:58PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > >> +void mv88e6123_serdes_get_regs(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port, void *_p) > >> +{ > >> + u16 *p = _p; > >> + u16 reg; > >> + int i; > >> + > >> + if (mv88e6xxx_serdes_get_lane(chip, port) == 0) > >> + return; > >> + > >> + for (i = 0; i < 26; i++) { > >> + mv88e6xxx_phy_read(chip, port, i, ®); > > Shouldn't this deal with a failed read in some way, rather than just > > assigning the last or possibly uninitialised value to p[i] ? > > mv88e6390_serdes_get_regs() and mv88e6352_serdes_get_regs() also ignore > the error. The generic mv88e6xxx_get_regs() memsets p[] to 0xff so if > the serdes_get_regs functions just left it alone we'd return 0xffff > which is probably better than repeating the last value although it's > still ambiguous because 0xffff is a valid value for plenty of these > registers. > > Since it looks like I need to come up with an alternative to patch #1 > I'll concentrate on that but making the serdes_get_regs() a little more > error tolerant is a cleanup I can easily tack on onto this series. Yep, it looks like they all suffer the same problem. Interestingly, mv88e6xxx_get_regs() does handle the error by avoiding writing the register entry (so it gets left as 0xffff.) Incidentally, that's also the value you'll get when reading from a PHY that doesn't respond, since the MDIO data line is pulled high when undriven.