Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-206174-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:34:13 +0200
From: Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com, hauke@hauke-m.de, andrew@lunn.ch,
 f.fainelli@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
 kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org,
 conor+dt@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix error message
 in gswip_add_single_port_br()
Organization: TDT AG
In-Reply-To: <20240607112710.gbqyhnwisnjfnxrl@skbuf>
References: <20240606085234.565551-1-ms@dev.tdt.de>
 <20240606085234.565551-11-ms@dev.tdt.de>
 <20240607112710.gbqyhnwisnjfnxrl@skbuf>
Message-ID: <07b91d4a519c698bb80c0f50a0d00067@dev.tdt.de>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.17

On 2024-06-07 13:27, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:52:31AM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
>> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
>> 
>> The error message is printed when the port cannot be used. Update the
>> error message to reflect that.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl 
>> <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c 
>> b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> index d2195271ffe9..3c96a62b8e0a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> @@ -658,7 +658,8 @@ static int gswip_add_single_port_br(struct 
>> gswip_priv *priv, int port, bool add)
>>  	int err;
>> 
>>  	if (port >= max_ports || dsa_is_cpu_port(priv->ds, port)) {
>> -		dev_err(priv->dev, "single port for %i supported\n", port);
>> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "single port for %i is not supported\n",
>> +			port);
>>  		return -EIO;
>>  	}
>> 
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>> 
> 
> Isn't even the original condition (port >= max_ports) dead code? Why 
> not
> remove the condition altogether?

I also agree here if we can be sure, that .port_enable, 
.port_bridge_join and
.port_bridge_leave are only called for "valid" (<= max_ports) ports.