On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 06:55:47PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 05:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 04:12:58PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > soft_reset call for phy_init_hw had multiple revision across the years
> > > and the implementation goes back to 2014. Originally was a simple call
> > > to write the generic PHY reset BIT, it was then moved to a dedicated
> > > function. It was then added the option for PHY driver to define their
> > > own special way to reset the PHY. Till this change, checking for ret was
> > > correct as it was always filled by either the generic reset or the
> > > custom implementation. This changed tho with commit 6e2d85ec0559 ("net:
> > > phy: Stop with excessive soft reset"), as the generic reset call to PHY
> > > was dropped but the ret check was never made entirely optional and
> > > dependent whether soft_reset was defined for the PHY driver or not.
> > >
> > > Luckly nothing was ever added before the soft_reset call so the ret
> > > check (in the case where a PHY didn't had soft_reset defined) although
> > > wrong, never caused problems as ret was init 0 at the start of
> > > phy_init_hw.
> > >
> > > To prevent any kind of problem and to make the function cleaner and more
> > > robust, correctly move the ret check if the soft_reset section making it
> > > optional and needed only with the function defined.
> >
> > I think this should target net-next, not net. It does not appear to be
> > an problem which actually affects somebody using stable kernels.
> >
> > The change itself looks O.K.
> >
>
> Ok to resubmit or should I wait 24h? (asking as it's a very simple
> change)
Please wait 24 hours.
> Also is the stable Cc ok?
> (that was the main reason I added the net tag to this)
No drop the Cc: Stable. Your description of the problem does not fit
the rules for stable.
Andrew
