Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210611105401.270673-1-ciorneiioana@gmail.com>
 <20210611105401.270673-4-ciorneiioana@gmail.com> <CAHp75VcfEbMecsGprNW33OtiddVw1MhmOVrtb9Gx4tKL5BjvYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0ipvAodoFhU4XK+cL2tf-0jExtMd2QUarMK0QPJQyeJxg@mail.gmail.com> <20210611120843.GK22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20210611120843.GK22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:31:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ijr8jhuyJDDS8n=8L53R26rtnYHmO-g7S7gdLXH+P3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/15] net: phy: Introduce phy related fwnode functions
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ciorneiioana@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@arm.com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>,
        Pieter Jansen Van Vuuren <pieter.jansenvv@bamboosystems.io>,
        Jon <jon@solid-run.com>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Calvin Johnson <calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com>,
        Cristi Sovaiala <cristian.sovaiala@nxp.com>,
        Florin Laurentiu Chiculita <florinlaurentiu.chiculita@nxp.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@nxp.com>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Diana Madalina Craciun <diana.craciun@nxp.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux.cj" <linux.cj@gmail.com>,
        Laurentiu Tudor <laurentiu.tudor@nxp.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:08 PM Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 01:40:59PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you want the above to be two if () statements instead of one?
> >
> > I would change the ordering anyway, that is
> >
> > if (!IS_ERR(phy_node) || is_acpi_node(fwnode))
> >         return phy_node;
> >
> > And I think that the is_acpi_node() check is there to return the error
> > code right away so as to avoid returning a "not found" error later.
> >
> > But I'm not sure if this is really necessary.  Namely, if nothing
> > depends on the specific error code returned by this function, it would
> > be somewhat cleaner to let the code below run if phy_node is an error
> > pointer in the ACPI case, because in that case the code below will
> > produce an error pointer anyway.
>
> However, that opens the door to someone shipping "working" ACPI with
> one of these names that we've taken the decision not to support on
> ACPI firmware. Surely, it's much better that we don't accept the
> legacy names so we don't allow such configurations to work.

Fair enough.