Hi Sergei,
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 22:53 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 09/08/2015 03:46 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>
> > > > Current check of phydev with IS_ERR(phydev) may make not much sense
> > > > because of_phy_connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
> > > >
Hello.
On 09/08/2015 03:46 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
Current check of phydev with IS_ERR(phydev) may make not much sense
because of_phy_connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
Still for checking result of phy_connect() IS_ERR() makes perfect sense.
So let's use combined chec
Hi Sergei,
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 14:20 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 9/8/2015 11:43 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
>
> > Current check of phydev with IS_ERR(phydev) may make not much sense
> > because of_phy_connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
> >
> > Still for
Hello.
On 9/8/2015 11:43 AM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
Current check of phydev with IS_ERR(phydev) may make not much sense
because of_phy_connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
Still for checking result of phy_connect() IS_ERR() makes perfect sense.
So let's use combined check
Current check of phydev with IS_ERR(phydev) may make not much sense
because of_phy_connect() returns NULL on failure instead of error value.
Still for checking result of phy_connect() IS_ERR() makes perfect sense.
So let's use combined check IS_ERR_OR_NULL() that covers both cases.
Cc: Sergei Sh
