Re: [net PATCH 2/2] net: phy: Skip PHY LEDs OF registration for Generic PHY driver

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

> While the patch in net-next fix a broken condition (PHY driver exist but
> doesn't have LEDs OPs), this account a much possible scenario.
> 
> It's totally ok if the PHY driver is not loaded and we fallback to the
> Generic PHY and there are LEDs node.
> 
> This is the case with something like
> ip link set eth0 down
> rmmod air_en8811h
> ip link set eth0 up
> 
> On this up, the Generic PHY is loaded and LEDs will wrongly be
> registered. We should not add the LED to the phydev LEDs list.
> 
> Do you think this logic is wrong and we should print a warning also in
> this case? Or should we bite it and just return 0 with no warning at
> all? (again my concern is the additional LEDs entry in sysfs that won't
> be actually usable as everything will be rejected)

We should not add LEDs which we cannot drive. That much is clear to
me.

I would also agree that LEDs in DT which we cannot drive is not
fatal. So the return value should be 0.

The only really open point is phydev_err(), phydev_warn() or
phydev_dbg(). Since it is not fatal, phydev_err() is wrong. I would
probably go with phydev_dbg(), to aid somebody debugging why the LEDs
don't appear in some conditions.

	Andrew