On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 03:44:33PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > While the patch in net-next fix a broken condition (PHY driver exist but > > doesn't have LEDs OPs), this account a much possible scenario. > > > > It's totally ok if the PHY driver is not loaded and we fallback to the > > Generic PHY and there are LEDs node. > > > > This is the case with something like > > ip link set eth0 down > > rmmod air_en8811h > > ip link set eth0 up > > > > On this up, the Generic PHY is loaded and LEDs will wrongly be > > registered. We should not add the LED to the phydev LEDs list. > > > > Do you think this logic is wrong and we should print a warning also in > > this case? Or should we bite it and just return 0 with no warning at > > all? (again my concern is the additional LEDs entry in sysfs that won't > > be actually usable as everything will be rejected) > > We should not add LEDs which we cannot drive. That much is clear to > me. > > I would also agree that LEDs in DT which we cannot drive is not > fatal. So the return value should be 0. > > The only really open point is phydev_err(), phydev_warn() or > phydev_dbg(). Since it is not fatal, phydev_err() is wrong. I would > probably go with phydev_dbg(), to aid somebody debugging why the LEDs > don't appear in some conditions. > Ok I will squash this and the net-next patch and change to dbg. Do you think it's still "net" content? I'm more tempted to post in net-next since I have to drop the Generic PHY condition. -- Ansuel
