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: <e1cdc94be0e515a5de9d4af8fccfd99e25435b73.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add erratum 3.14 for
 88E6390X and 88E6190X
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Ante Knezic <ante.knezic@helmholz.de>,
        "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        olteanv@gmail.com
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 12:47:43 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20230725095925.25121-1-ante.knezic@helmholz.de>
References: <30e262679bfdfd975c2880b990fe8375b9860aab.camel@redhat.com>
         <20230725095925.25121-1-ante.knezic@helmholz.de>
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

[adding Russell]
On Tue, 2023-07-25 at 11:59 +0200, Ante Knezic wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:56:25 +0200 Paolo Abeni wrote
> > It looks like you are ignoring the errors reported by
> > mv88e6390_erratum_3_14(). Should the above be:
> >=20
> > 		return mv88e6390_erratum_3_14(mpcs);
> >=20
> > instead?
> >=20
>=20
> I guess you are right. Would it make sense to do the evaluation for the=
=20
> 	mv88e639x_sgmii_pcs_control_pwr(mpcs, true);
> above as well?

Good question ;) it looks like pcs_post_config() errors are always
ignored by the core, but I guess it's better to report them as
accurately as possible.

@Russell, what it your preference here, should we just ignore the
generate errors earlier, or try to propagate them to the core/phylink,
should that later be changed to deal with them?

Thanks,

Paolo