On 26.03.2024 12:02, Paolo Abeni wrote:
If I read the past discussion correctly, this is a potential issue
found by code inspection and never producing problem in practice, am I
correct?
If so I think it will deserve a 3rd party tested-by tag or similar to
go in.
If nobody could provide such feedback in a little time, I suggest to
drop this patch and apply only 1/2.
Whether a problem would happen in practice depends on when phy_init_eee()
fails, meaning it returns a negative non-zero code. I requested Russell to
review this patch to shed light on when phy_init_eee() would return a
negative non-zero code so we have an idea whether this patch actually fixes
a problem.