On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses > > > of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it > > > return 0 on success seems like a better fix. > > > > I'd like to avoid that, because I don't want to have yet another > > accessor that needs to be used for advertisment modification (where > > we need to know if we changed any bits.) > > > > That's why this accessor returns the old value. > > Hi Russell > > where exactly is this use case? I've not found it yet. > > I can understand your argument. But how long it is going to take us to > find all the breakage because the return value has changed meaning? > > The trade off is adding yet another accessor vs debugging and fixing > the repercussions. > > I think i prefer not breaking existing code. Please introduce a new accessor then. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
