Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-120566-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:46:19 +0300
From: arinc.unal@arinc9.com
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
 DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>, Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>, Andrew
 Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>, Vladimir
 Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Matthias
 Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
 <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Ren=C3=A9_van_Dor?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?st?= <opensource@vdorst.com>, Russell King
 <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, SkyLake Huang <SkyLake.Huang@mediatek.com>, Heiner
 Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: Bartel Eerdekens <bartel.eerdekens@constell8.be>,
 mithat.guner@xeront.com, erkin.bozoglu@xeront.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: dsa: mt7530: fix disabling EEE on failure
 on MT7531 and MT7988
In-Reply-To: <d65f4c45-e616-4157-a769-c285cbad575c@arinc9.com>
References: <20240321-for-net-mt7530-fix-eee-for-mt7531-mt7988-v2-0-9af9d5041bfe@arinc9.com>
 <20240321-for-net-mt7530-fix-eee-for-mt7531-mt7988-v2-2-9af9d5041bfe@arinc9.com>
 <799572b672ea8b4756236b14068aef7c8fa726a6.camel@redhat.com>
 <d65f4c45-e616-4157-a769-c285cbad575c@arinc9.com>
Message-ID: <530da7c1-c058-44ef-84fd-86ff58f1501b@arinc9.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 26.03.2024 12:19, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> On 26.03.2024 12:02, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> If I read the past discussion correctly, this is a potential issue
>> found by code inspection and never producing problem in practice, am I
>> correct?
>> 
>> If so I think it will deserve a 3rd party tested-by tag or similar to
>> go in.
>> 
>> If nobody could provide such feedback in a little time, I suggest to
>> drop this patch and apply only 1/2.
> 
> Whether a problem would happen in practice depends on when 
> phy_init_eee()
> fails, meaning it returns a negative non-zero code. I requested Russell 
> to
> review this patch to shed light on when phy_init_eee() would return a
> negative non-zero code so we have an idea whether this patch actually 
> fixes
> a problem.

I don't suppose Russell is going to review the patch at this point. I 
will
submit this to net-next then. If someone actually reports a problem in
practice, I can always submit it to the stable trees.

Arınç