* Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [150826 13:58]: > 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. Acked the second version thanks :) Tony -- 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
