Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: phy: dp83td510: Add support for the DP83TD510 Ethernet PHY

[Dan Murphy]

Andrew

On 11/3/20 11:21 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:09:44AM -0600, Dan Murphy wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On 10/30/20 6:03 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:29:50 -0500 Dan Murphy wrote:
> > > > The DP83TD510E is an ultra-low power Ethernet physical layer transceiver
> > > > that supports 10M single pair cable.
> > > >
> > > > The device supports both 2.4-V p2p and 1-V p2p output voltage as defined
> > > > by IEEE 802.3cg 10Base-T1L specfications. These modes can be forced via
> > > > the device tree or the device is defaulted to auto negotiation to
> > > > determine the proper p2p voltage.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@xxxxxx>
> > > drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:70:11: warning: symbol 'dp83td510_feature_array' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > I did not see this warning. Did you use W=1?
> I _think_ that one is W=1. All the PHY drivers are W=1 clean, and i
> want to keep it that way. And i hope to make it the default in a lot
> of the network code soon.
OK I built with the W=1 before submission I did not see this but I will 
try some other things.
> > > Also this:
> > >
> > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
> > > #429: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:371:
> > > +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> > >
> > > WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
> > > #524: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:466:
> > > +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> > Same with these warnings how where they reproduced?
Same as above
> > > ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
> > > #580: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:522:
> > > +		if(phydev->autoneg) {
> > >
> > > ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '('
> > > #588: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:530:
> > > +		if(phydev->autoneg) {
> These look like checkpatch.
These I missed
> > > And please try to wrap the code on 80 chars on the non trivial lines:
> > What is the LoC limit for networking just for my clarification and I will
> > align with that.
> 80. I would not be too surprised to see checkpatch getting a patch to
> set it to 80 for networking code.

OK I will align the lines to 80 then.

Dan


>      Andrew