Hi Tony,
On 08/26/2015 01:16 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[ ... ]
We may need two separate patches, one to fix up device_property_read_u32()
to return -ENXIO, and one to fix smsc911x_probe_config() to ignore the error
from device_get_phy_mode(), and to bail out if device_property_read_u32()
returns -ENXIO.
I guess the device_property_read_u32() change needs to be discussed
separately.. So probably best to fix up the regression to smsc911x
first.
Not sure myself. Jeremy has a point - we don't really know for sure how
safe it is to check for -ENODATA (in addition to -ENXIO). Also, fixing
device_property_read_u32() turned out to be much easier than I thought.
The simpler alternative would be to check the return value from
device_property_read_u32() for both -ENXIO and -ENODATA.
This would make the code independent of the necessary core changes
(which may take a while). I tested this variant, and it works, at least
for the non-DT case.
Does this make sense ?
Yeh I think that would allow fixing up the smsc911x regression while
discussing the device_property_read_u32() change. Got a test patch
for me to try?
You should have two by now to choose from.
Guenter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
