Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Medium] Silent ignoring of hardware write failures during PHY initialization. - [Medium] False positive error logs emitted when optional eFuse calibration data is missing. - [Low] Unused variables left over from refactoring (`dev` and `ret`). --
commit 7b4b9550381f2fc0574d6e28361a57bed4016c26 Author: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <[email protected]> phy: phy-mtk-dp: Add support for digital and analog calibration This commit adds support for reading DP PHY calibration values from eFuse. If calibration values are present, they are written to the PHY; otherwise, the driver falls back to default SoC-specific values. It also adds support for writing the calibration values for the analog part of the PHY. > diff --git a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-dp.c > b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-dp.c > index 692049f788332..2f4cf52d922c1 100644 > --- a/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-dp.c > +++ b/drivers/phy/mediatek/phy-mtk-dp.c [ ... ] > -static int mtk_dp_phy_init(struct phy *phy) > +static void mtk_dp_phy_set_digital_drv_params(struct mtk_dp_phy *dp_phy) > { > - struct mtk_dp_phy *dp_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > const struct mtk_dp_phy_pdata *pdata = dp_phy->pdata; > const u32 reg = pdata->regs_dig_lane[DP_PHYD_LAN_DRIVING_PARAM_0]; > - static const u32 driving_params[] = { [ ... ] > - }; > int i, ret; [Severity: Low] Is `ret` still needed here? The return checks for regmap bulk writes were removed below, which appears to leave this variable completely unused. > > /* [ ... ] > - for (i = 0; i < MTK_DP_PHY_MAX_LANES; i++) { > - ret = regmap_bulk_write(dp_phy->regmap, > - pdata->off_dig_lane[i] + reg, > - driving_params, > - ARRAY_SIZE(driving_params)); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - }; > + for (i = 0; i < MTK_DP_PHY_MAX_LANES; i++) > + regmap_bulk_write(dp_phy->regmap, pdata->off_dig_lane[i] + reg, > + pdata->driving_params, > + ARRAY_SIZE(pdata->driving_params)); > +} [Severity: Medium] Does this code introduce a regression by silently ignoring hardware write failures during PHY initialization? Prior to this patch, if regmap_bulk_write() failed, the error was propagated back to the caller. Now that this has been extracted into a void function, any hardware or bus errors during these bulk writes will be silently dropped. > + > +static int mtk_dp_phy_init(struct phy *phy) > +{ > + struct mtk_dp_phy *dp_phy = phy_get_drvdata(phy); > + struct device *dev = &phy->dev; [Severity: Low] Is the `dev` variable used anywhere in this function? It appears to be declared and assigned but never utilized. > + > + mtk_dp_phy_set_digital_drv_params(dp_phy); > + mtk_dp_phy_set_analog_calibration_params(dp_phy); > > return 0; > } [Severity: Medium] Does the PHY initialization now unconditionally succeed regardless of the underlying hardware state? Because the extracted functions mtk_dp_phy_set_digital_drv_params() and mtk_dp_phy_set_analog_calibration_params() return void, any failures during regmap updates will not be caught, and this function will always improperly return 0 on failure. [ ... ] > +static int mtk_dp_phy_get_one_cal_para(struct device *dev, const char *name, > u8 max_val) > +{ > + u8 buf_byte; > + u16 buf; > + int ret; > + [ ... ] > + ret = nvmem_cell_read_u8(dev, name, &buf_byte); > + if (ret) > + ret = nvmem_cell_read_u16(dev, name, &buf); > + else > + buf = buf_byte; > + > + if (ret) > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Cannot get calibration data for > %s\n", name); [Severity: Medium] Will this cause false positive error logs on normal boots? If an NVMEM cell is missing, the nvmem read functions naturally return -ENOENT. This dev_err_probe() triggers a KERN_ERR log here before returning the error to the caller. > + > + if (buf == 0) { [ ... ] > +static int mtk_dp_phy_get_calibration_data(struct mtk_dp_phy *dp_phy) > +{ [ ... ] > +end: > + if (ret < 0) { > + /* > + * If any of the calibration values is missing, or if there > + * is no calibration at all in the eFuses, copy the default > + * one entirely (as partial values shall not be mixed!) > + */ > + if (ret == -ENOENT) { > + dev_info(dev, "Using calibration default values\n"); > + mtk_dp_phy_get_default_cal_data(dp_phy); > + return 0; > + } [Severity: Medium] Since -ENOENT is explicitly checked and handled gracefully as a benign fallback here, should we avoid logging it as an error in mtk_dp_phy_get_one_cal_para() earlier? Logging an expected missing cell as an error falsely spams the kernel dmesg with an error trace for boards that legitimately omit calibration data. -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=8
