From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=auZG=QG=vger.kernel.org=netdev-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926B1C282D7
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F5E220989
	for <netdev@archiver.kernel.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:42:39 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="2d2fJKeD"
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1730781AbfA3Pmi (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:42:38 -0500
Received: from vps0.lunn.ch ([185.16.172.187]:60924 "EHLO vps0.lunn.ch"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1729884AbfA3Pmi (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:42:38 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch;
        s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:
        Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
        Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
        :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:
        List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
        bh=2D3Rlp1g9ugkhC8ej66vwIxPLTbuRgRBG3RTQRFpIWY=; b=2d2fJKeD88MN3N284y6NnEGU7T
        jyq0UzQcQEFr7nv+pAY49NLWwr5DtthiG8U76WPXaiPCbQlyjQWtofIpVIgLjrvt6jmzYrzERsqZ6
        B/t61+akFPQnw/xKrW35PBG7vuqcuX/n5eRet9iqO0DQXs4uU9JpHszBlun5c9tF1JQA=;
Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.89)
        (envelope-from <andrew@lunn.ch>)
        id 1gos0Z-00041l-Ip; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:42:35 +0100
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 16:42:35 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT net-next 03/10] net: dsa: mv88e6060: Replace
 REG_WRITE macro
Message-ID: <20190130154235.GB15050@lunn.ch>
References: <20190130003758.23852-1-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <20190130003758.23852-4-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <20190130092451.GA22071@amd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190130092451.GA22071@amd>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:24:51AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2019-01-30 01:37:51, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > The REG_WRITE macro contains a return statement, making it not very
> > safe. Remove it by inlining the code.
> 
> Not bad, but maybe there should be dev_err() or something in case of
> reg_write() returns an error?

Hi Pavel

An error is always returned to the caller. It should be the caller who
handles error recovery, and if need be prints an error message. The
only time we would print an error message is in a void function, when
we cannot return an error code.

I've also followed what we do in mv88e6xxx. It works fine there, so i
don't see the need to do anything different here.

      Andrew