> > Specific reason to use val then using > LAN9303_BM_EGRSS_PORT_TYPE_SPECIAL_TAG_PORT0 > > like previous line? > > > Specific reason was to please a reviewer that did not like my > indenting in first version. I did not agree with him, but since > nobody else spoke up, I changed the code. Got it. Missed previous patch/comment.
> >> @@ -644,6 +648,10 @@ static int lan9303_setup(struct dsa_switch *ds) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >> > >> + ret = lan9303_setup_tagging(chip); > >> + if (ret) > >> + dev_err(chip->dev, "failed to setup port tagging %d\n", ret); > >> + > > Still move on when error happens? > > > Good question. I just followed the pattern from the original function, > which was not made by me. Actually I did once reflect on whether this > was the correct way. Perhaps it could be argued that it is better to > allow the device to come up, so the problem can be investigated? Maybe depends on severity of setting? BTW, lan9303_setup() still returns ZERO at the end? Thanks. Woojung
