Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] net: mvneta: implement .set_wol and .get_wol

[Jisheng Zhang]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:08:48 +0800 Jisheng Zhang wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:10:34 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:55:07PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:  
> > > From: Jingju Hou <houjingj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > From: Jingju Hou <houjingj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > The mvneta itself does not support WOL, but the PHY might.
> > > So pass the calls to the PHY
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jingju Hou <houjingj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > since v3:
> > >  - really fix the build error    
> > 
> > Keep trying....
> > 
> > But maybe tomorrow, after you have taken the pause Dave said you
> > should take, and maybe ask Jingju to really review it, in detail.  
> 
> Jingju is a newbie in the Linux kernel community. She made a mistake
> when trying to send the old patch. I picked up her patch when she went
> on vacation, fixed the error and send it out on behalf of her.
> 
> >   
> > > 
> > > since v2,v1:
> > >  - using phy_dev member in struct net_device
> > >  - add commit msg
> > > 
> > >  drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> > > index 6dcc951af0ff..02611fa1c3b8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/marvell/mvneta.c
> > > @@ -3929,6 +3929,25 @@ static int mvneta_ethtool_get_rxfh(struct net_device *dev, u32 *indir, u8 *key,
> > >  	return 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void mvneta_ethtool_get_wol(struct net_device *dev,
> > > +				   struct ethtool_wolinfo *wol)
> > > +{
> > > +	wol->supported = 0;
> > > +	wol->wolopts = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	if (dev->phydev)
> > > +		return phy_ethtool_get_wol(dev->phydev, wol);    
> > 
> > This is a void function.  And you are returning a value.  And
> > phy_ethtool_get_wol() is also a void function, so does not actually
> > return anything.  
> 
> Thanks for catching it, fixed in v4, can you please review?

typo, fixed in v5.