Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/15] net: phy: Introduce phy related fwnode functions

From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Ioana Ciornei <ciorneiioana@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>,
	Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
	Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
	Pieter Jansen Van Vuuren <pieter.jansenvv@bamboosystems.io>,
	Jon <jon@solid-run.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com>,
	Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@nxp.com>,
	Florin Laurentiu Chiculita <florinlaurentiu.chiculita@nxp.com>,
	Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com>,
	linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@nxp.com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux.cj" <linux.cj@gmail.com>,
	Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/15] net: phy: Introduce phy related fwnode functions
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 13:08:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210611120843.GK22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0ipvAodoFhU4XK+cL2tf-0jExtMd2QUarMK0QPJQyeJxg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I'm not sure why you want the above to be two if () statements instead of one?
> 
> I would change the ordering anyway, that is
> 
> if (!IS_ERR(phy_node) || is_acpi_node(fwnode))
>         return phy_node;
> 
> And I think that the is_acpi_node() check is there to return the error
> code right away so as to avoid returning a "not found" error later.
> 
> But I'm not sure if this is really necessary.  Namely, if nothing
> depends on the specific error code returned by this function, it would
> be somewhat cleaner to let the code below run if phy_node is an error
> pointer in the ACPI case, because in that case the code below will
> produce an error pointer anyway.

However, that opens the door to someone shipping "working" ACPI with
one of these names that we've taken the decision not to support on
ACPI firmware. Surely, it's much better that we don't accept the
legacy names so we don't allow such configurations to work.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!