Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4e1d5db9dea68d82c94336a1d6aac404@walle.cc> <Yrrhs3D++V79/4Jk@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <f17d3ecfecf4491dd15b1fa092205f3f@walle.cc> <CAHp75Vd6e3WwHPfyL=GP=vsoWhwGXadwQziiRRwfHPfjkX2eFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2f2d7685e0e43194270a310034004970@walle.cc>
In-Reply-To: <2f2d7685e0e43194270a310034004970@walle.cc>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 15:29:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcANMjxgS6S24Zh+mz66usb6LBnQk-ENvU9JHSXXsG1DA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fwnode_for_each_child_node() and OF backend discrepancy
To:     Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:23 PM Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> wrote:
>
> >> I was trying to fix the lan966x driver [1] which doesn't work if there
> >> are disabled nodes in between.
> >
> > Can you elaborate what's wrong now in the behaviour of the driver? In
> > the code it uses twice the _available variant.
>
> Imagine the following device tree snippet:
>   port0 {
>     reg = <0>;
>     status = "okay";
>   }
>   port1 {
>     reg = <1>;
>     status = "disabled";
>   }
>   port@2 {
>     reg = <2>;
>     status = "okay";
>   }
>
> The driver will set num_phys_ports to 2. When port@2 is probed, it
> will have the (correct!) physical port number 2. That will then
> trigger various EINVAL checks with "port_num >= num_phys_ports" or
> WARN()s.

It means the above mentioned condition is wrong: it should be

"port_idx >= num_phys_ports" (if the port_idx doesn't exists, that's
the bug in the first place)

> So the easiest fix would be to actual count all the child nodes
> (regardless if they are available or not), assuming there are as
> many nodes as physical ports.
>
> But num_phys_ports being a property of the hardware

So, name is wrong, that's how I read it, it should be
num_of_acrive_phys_ports (or alike).

> I don't
> think it's good to deduce it by counting the child nodes anyway,

Right.

> but it should rather be a (hardcoded) property of the driver.

Also good to update.

> [1]
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.19-rc4/source/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko