On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +int phy_configure(struct phy *phy, enum phy_mode mode,
> > > > + union phy_configure_opts *opts)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!phy)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!phy->ops->configure)
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > Shouldn't you report an error to the caller ? If a caller expects the PHY to
> > > be configurable, I would assume that silently ignoring the requested
> > > configuration won't work great.
> >
> > I'm not sure. I also expect a device having to interact with multiple
> > PHYs, some of them needing some configuration while some other do
> > not. In that scenario, returning 0 seems to be the right thing to do.
>
> You could return -EOPNOTSUPP. That is common in the network stack. The
> caller then has the information to decide if it should keep going, or
> return an error.
Ok, that works for me then.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
