On 01/11/2018 07:48 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:21 +0100
>
>> In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
>> (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
>> (__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY registe
> Sorry, the phy_restore_page() semantics are driving me crazy.
> Let's revert.
I will try to take a look today.
Andrew
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 05:00:03PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:48:35AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: Geert Uytterho
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:48:35AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven
>>> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:21 +0100
>>>
>>> > In case of success, th
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:48:35AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven
> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:21 +0100
>
> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
> > (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
> > (__)phy_modify() return
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:48:35AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Geert Uytterhoeven
>> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:21 +0100
>>
>> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
>> > (__)phy_modify() are not
From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 12:11:21 +0100
> In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
> (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
> (__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY register value.
>
> Apparently this change was catered for
Hi Russell,
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> >> On Tue,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 07:25:40PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> >
Hi Russell,
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
>> > (__)phy_modify()
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses
> > > of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it
> > > return 0 on success seems like a better fix.
> >
> > I'd like to avoid that, becaus
> > I took a quick look at the uses of phy_modify(). I don't see any uses
> > of the return code other than as an error indicator. So having it
> > return 0 on success seems like a better fix.
>
> I'd like to avoid that, because I don't want to have yet another
> accessor that needs to be used for
Hi Russell,
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
>> > (__)phy_modify()
On 09/01/18 12:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
> (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
> (__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY register value.
>
> Apparently this change was catered for in drivers/net/phy/m
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 03:10:08PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
> > (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
> > (__)phy_modify() returns
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:11:21PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
> (__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
> (__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY register value.
>
> Apparently this change was catered f
In case of success, the return values of (__)phy_write() and
(__)phy_modify() are not compatible: (__)phy_write() returns 0, while
(__)phy_modify() returns the old PHY register value.
Apparently this change was catered for in drivers/net/phy/marvell.c, but
not in other source files.
Hence genphy_
17 matches
Mail list logo