Re: [PATCH 02/10] phy: Add configuration interface

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:24:50PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +int phy_configure(struct phy *phy, enum phy_mode mode,
> > > > +		  union phy_configure_opts *opts)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!phy)
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!phy->ops->configure)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't you report an error to the caller ? If a caller expects the PHY to 
> > > be configurable, I would assume that silently ignoring the requested 
> > > configuration won't work great.
> > 
> > I'm not sure. I also expect a device having to interact with multiple
> > PHYs, some of them needing some configuration while some other do
> > not. In that scenario, returning 0 seems to be the right thing to do.
> 
> You could return -EOPNOTSUPP. That is common in the network stack. The
> caller then has the information to decide if it should keep going, or
> return an error.

Ok, that works for me then.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature