Some take it or leave it comments, checkpatch pointed out some extra
brackets so I had a look at the patch.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 01:23:13 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> + int rx_delay = -1, tx_delay = -1;
>
> + if (!phy_interface_mode_is_rgmii(phy_mode))
> + return 0;
>
> + of_property_read_u32(port_dn, "rx-internal-delay-ps", &rx_delay);
> + of_property_read_u32(port_dn, "tx-internal-delay-ps", &tx_delay);
If I'm reading this right you're depending on delays being left as -1
in case the property reads fail. Is this commonly accepted practice?
Why not code it up as:
u32 rx_delay;
if (of_property_read_u32(...))
rx_delay = 0;
else if (rx_delay != clamp(rx_delay, ...MIN, ...MAX)
goto err;
or some such?
> + if ((rx_delay && rx_delay < SJA1105_RGMII_DELAY_MIN_PS) ||
> + (tx_delay && tx_delay < SJA1105_RGMII_DELAY_MIN_PS) ||
> + (rx_delay > SJA1105_RGMII_DELAY_MAX_PS) ||
> + (tx_delay > SJA1105_RGMII_DELAY_MAX_PS)) {
nit: checkpatch says the brackets around the latter two are unnecessary,
just in case it's not for symmetry / on purpose
