Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] phy: core: Add managed phy bulk data helper functions

From: Inochi Amaoto

Date: Wed Sep 30 2026 - 05:24:40 EST


On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 11:29:01AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 04:52:34PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > Add device managed variants of the phy bulk helper functions. So
> > the driver can benefit from automatically managed phy handles.
>
> ...
>
> > +int devm_of_phy_bulk_get_all(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> > + struct phy_bulk_data **phys)
> > +{
> > + struct phy_bulk_devres *devres;
> > + int ret;
>
> > + *phys = NULL;
>
> Why?! In case of error we modify the output, this is usually not the best
> approach as in most of the cases the expectation is that whatever user
> provide (including a garbage) should be left untouched in case of an error.
>

This is something I think this is wrong and I need to removed.

> > + if (!np)
> > + return 0;
>
> Same here. On top why do we even care about np like this? Interestingly that
> some other APIs consider this as np == dev_of_node(dev) case, and automatically
> propagate that.
>

After a deep recheck. I think you are true. We do not need to care
about that, just let the internal api decide whether it should be
an error is better. I misunderstand that it should check it at early
stage to avoid some bad use in the following logic. Now I found it
is meaningless.

> > + devres = devres_alloc(devm_phy_bulk_release_all, sizeof(*devres),
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!devres)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + ret = of_phy_bulk_get_all(np, &devres->phys);
> > + if (ret > 0) {
> > + for (int i = 0; i < ret; i++)
> > + phy_add_device_link(dev, devres->phys[i].phy);
> > + *phys = devres->phys;
> > + devres->num_phys = ret;
> > + devres_add(dev, devres);
> > + } else {
> > + devres_free(devres);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> ...
>
> > +static inline int devm_of_phy_bulk_get_all(struct device *dev,
> > + struct device_node *np,
> > + struct phy_bulk_data **phys)
> > +{
> > + if (phys)
> > + *phys = NULL;
>
> Same as per above.
>
> > + return 0;
>
> Why not an error? I do not see the _optional word in the function name.
>

IIRC get_all it a special optional meaning: treat not existing device as
0, this follows the same meaning like clk. Vladimir has a good explaination
on this in the previous version:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-phy/20260907124318.6q4rr2huxyehm3zs@skbuf/

> > +}
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>