On Thu, 2017-08-10 at 21:47 -0500, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I'm a little confused. Is this patch causing any trouble?
Not to me. I no longer have an e1000e.
Given the commit message, this just seemed to be a patch
that _might_ cause an issue if this code patch is actually
untested.
Compilation wise, it's obviously fine.
> On 08/10/2017 12:56 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-08-09 at 14:47 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > From: Gustavo A R Silva <garsi...@embeddedor.com>
> > >
> > > Check return value from call to e1e_wphy(). This value is being
> > > checked during previous calls to function e1e_wphy() and it seems
> > > a check was missing here.
> >
> > The use of "it seems" here is less than compelling.
> >
>
> This is one of the first patches I sent. Maybe I should have added a
> note saying that this patch needed some testing, as I don't have the
> hardware to test it.
>
> > Perhaps the write of 0x3140 to MII_BMCR takes too long for
> > the return value used.
> >
> > Many other uses of e1e_wphy.*MII_BMCR are also not checked.
> >
> > For instance: the e100e/ethtool uses.
> >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c
> > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/ich8lan.c
> >
> > []
> > > @@ -2437,6 +2437,8 @@ static s32 e1000_hv_phy_workarounds_ich8lan(struct
> > > e1000_hw *hw)
> > > if (hw->phy.revision < 2) {
> > > e1000e_phy_sw_reset(hw);
> > > ret_val = e1e_wphy(hw, MII_BMCR, 0x3140);
> > > + if (ret_val)
> > > + return ret_val;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
>
> Thanks
