Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: phy: dp83td510: Add support for the DP83TD510 Ethernet PHY | From | Dan Murphy <> | Date | Tue, 3 Nov 2020 11:23:57 -0600 |
| |
Andrew
On 11/3/20 11:21 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 11:09:44AM -0600, Dan Murphy wrote: >> Hello >> >> On 10/30/20 6:03 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:29:50 -0500 Dan Murphy wrote: >>>> The DP83TD510E is an ultra-low power Ethernet physical layer transceiver >>>> that supports 10M single pair cable. >>>> >>>> The device supports both 2.4-V p2p and 1-V p2p output voltage as defined >>>> by IEEE 802.3cg 10Base-T1L specfications. These modes can be forced via >>>> the device tree or the device is defaulted to auto negotiation to >>>> determine the proper p2p voltage. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Murphy <dmurphy@ti.com> >>> drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:70:11: warning: symbol 'dp83td510_feature_array' was not declared. Should it be static? >> I did not see this warning. Did you use W=1? > I _think_ that one is W=1. All the PHY drivers are W=1 clean, and i > want to keep it that way. And i hope to make it the default in a lot > of the network code soon. OK I built with the W=1 before submission I did not see this but I will try some other things. >>> Also this: >>> >>> WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP >>> #429: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:371: >>> + return -ENOTSUPP; >>> >>> WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP >>> #524: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:466: >>> + return -ENOTSUPP; >> Same with these warnings how where they reproduced? Same as above >>> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '(' >>> #580: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:522: >>> + if(phydev->autoneg) { >>> >>> ERROR: space required before the open parenthesis '(' >>> #588: FILE: drivers/net/phy/dp83td510.c:530: >>> + if(phydev->autoneg) { >>> > These look like checkpatch. These I missed >>> And please try to wrap the code on 80 chars on the non trivial lines: >> What is the LoC limit for networking just for my clarification and I will >> align with that. > 80. I would not be too surprised to see checkpatch getting a patch to > set it to 80 for networking code.
OK I will align the lines to 80 then.
Dan
> Andrew
| |