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;
Message-ID: <8aebd38cf057cf659d5133527f55e1ced0e6f70c.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: phy: broadcom: Add support for
 Wake-on-LAN
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Marek =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= <kabel@kernel.org>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>,
        Frank <Frank.Sae@motor-comm.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 12:26:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20230509223403.1852603-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
References: <20230509223403.1852603-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
         <20230509223403.1852603-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, 2023-05-09 at 15:34 -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> @@ -821,7 +917,28 @@ static int bcm54xx_phy_probe(struct phy_device *phyd=
ev)
>  	if (IS_ERR(priv->ptp))
>  		return PTR_ERR(priv->ptp);
> =20
> -	return 0;
> +	/* We cannot utilize the _optional variant here since we want to know
> +	 * whether the GPIO descriptor exists or not to advertise Wake-on-LAN
> +	 * support or not.
> +	 */
> +	wakeup_gpio =3D devm_gpiod_get(&phydev->mdio.dev, "wakeup", GPIOD_IN);
> +	if (PTR_ERR(wakeup_gpio) =3D=3D -EPROBE_DEFER)
> +		return PTR_ERR(wakeup_gpio);
> +
> +	if (!IS_ERR(wakeup_gpio)) {
> +		priv->wake_irq =3D gpiod_to_irq(wakeup_gpio);
> +		ret =3D irq_set_irq_type(priv->wake_irq, IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* If we do not have a main interrupt or a side-band wake-up interrupt,
> +	 * then the device cannot be marked as wake-up capable.
> +	 */
> +	if (!bcm54xx_phy_can_wakeup(phydev))
> +		return ret;

AFAICS, as this point 'ret' is 0, so the above is confusing. Do you
intend the probe to complete successfully? If so, would not be
better/more clear:

		return 0;

?

Thanks,

Paolo