Re: [PATCH net-next v4 10/13] net: ethtool: pse-pd: Target the command to the requested PHY

[Maxime Chevallier]

Hi Andrew,

Sorry I forgot to reply to that one...

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 10:58:30 +0100
Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 06:12:32PM +0100, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> > PSE and PD configuration is a PHY-specific command. Instead of targeting
> > the command towards dev->phydev, use the request to pick the targeted
> > PHY device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > V4: No changes
> > V3: No changes
> > V2: New patch
> > 
> >  net/ethtool/pse-pd.c | 14 +++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c b/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > index cc478af77111..0d9cd9c87104 100644
> > --- a/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > +++ b/net/ethtool/pse-pd.c
> > @@ -31,17 +31,10 @@ const struct nla_policy ethnl_pse_get_policy[ETHTOOL_A_PSE_HEADER + 1] = {
> >  	[ETHTOOL_A_PSE_HEADER] = NLA_POLICY_NESTED(ethnl_header_policy),
> >  };
> >  
> > -static int pse_get_pse_attributes(struct net_device *dev,
> > +static int pse_get_pse_attributes(struct phy_device *phydev,
> >  				  struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> >  				  struct pse_reply_data *data)
> >  {
> > -	struct phy_device *phydev = dev->phydev;
> > -
> > -	if (!phydev) {
> > -		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "No PHY is attached");
> > -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > -	}
> > -  
> 
> It would be good to say in the commit message why it is safe to remove
> this.

That's a good catch, this removal is wrong and will be put back in the
next iteration.

> > @@ -132,7 +124,7 @@ ethnl_set_pse(struct ethnl_req_info *req_info, struct genl_info *info)
> >  	/* this values are already validated by the ethnl_pse_set_policy */
> >  	config.admin_cotrol = nla_get_u32(tb[ETHTOOL_A_PODL_PSE_ADMIN_CONTROL]);
> >  
> > -	phydev = dev->phydev;
> > +	phydev = req_info->phydev;
> >  	if (!phydev) {
> >  		NL_SET_ERR_MSG(info->extack, "No PHY is attached");
> >  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;  
> 
> So you removed one test, but this one stays?

Thanks for the review,

Maxime