Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> __phy_modify would return the old value of the register before it was
> modified. Thus on success, it does not return 0, but a positive value.
> Thus functions using phy_modify, which is a wrapper around
> __phy_modify, can start returning > 0 on success, rather than 0. As a
> result, breakage has been noticed in various places, where 0 was
> assumed.
>
> Code inspection does not find any current location where the return of
> the old value is currently used. So have __phy_modify return 0 on
> success. When there is a real need for the old value, either a new
> accessor can be added, or an additional parameter passed.
>
> Fixes: 2b74e5be17d2 ("net: phy: add phy_modify() accessor")
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch>
> ---
>
> Geert, Niklas
>
> Please can you test this and let me know if it fixes the problems you
> see.
Yes it does, thanks!
Tested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+rene...@glider.be>
I'm a bit worried about users already relying on the new return value, though.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
