On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 06:55:02PM +0800, Szuying Chen wrote:
> @@ -527,6 +539,7 @@ int tb_port_state(struct tb_port *port)
> {
> struct tb_cap_phy phy;
> int res;
> +
> if (port->cap_phy == 0) {
> tb_port_WARN(port, "does not have a PHY\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -556,6 +569,7 @@ int tb_wait_for_port(struct tb_port *port, bool wait_if_unplugged)
> {
> int retries = 10;
> int state;
> +
> if (!port->cap_phy) {
> tb_port_WARN(port, "does not have PHY\n");
> return -EINVAL;
> @@ -653,6 +667,7 @@ int tb_port_add_nfc_credits(struct tb_port *port, int credits)
> int tb_port_clear_counter(struct tb_port *port, int counter)
> {
> u32 zero[3] = { 0, 0, 0 };
> +
> tb_port_dbg(port, "clearing counter %d\n", counter);
> return tb_port_write(port, zero, TB_CFG_COUNTERS, 3 * counter, 3);
> }
> @@ -875,6 +890,7 @@ static inline bool tb_switch_is_reachable(const struct tb_switch *parent,
> const struct tb_switch *sw)
> {
> u64 mask = (1ULL << parent->config.depth * 8) - 1;
> +
> return (tb_route(parent) & mask) == (tb_route(sw) & mask);
> }
>
These changes have nothing to do with your patch submission, and should
be a different patch entirely.
Remember, only do one-logical-thing per patch.
thanks,
greg k-h
