Joe Hershberger wrote:
@@ -384,7 +387,11 @@ static int fm_eth_open(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t *bd) fmc_tx_port_graceful_stop_disable(fm_eth);
#ifdef CONFIG_PHYLIB
phy_startup(fm_eth->phydev);
ret = phy_startup(fm_eth->phydev);if (ret) {printf("%s: Could not initialize\n", fm_eth->phydev->dev->name);Why is this string different from the others? Consistency?
Yes. I tried to keep the messages consistent with the other messages in the function.
Should you not at least keep the core message the same? "Could not initialize PHY"
Well, I suppose I could add the word "PHY" here.
diff --git a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c index bb57e4d..268d884 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sh_eth.c +++ b/drivers/net/sh_eth.c @@ -415,7 +415,11 @@ static int sh_eth_config(struct sh_eth_dev *eth, bd_t *bd) goto err_phy_cfg; } phy = port_info->phydev;
phy_startup(phy);
ret = phy_startup(phy);if (ret) {printf(SHETHER_NAME ": phy startup failure\n");Why is this string different from the others? Consistency?
Yes, it looks like the other messages in sh_eth_config().
Same here, at least the core message "Could not initialize PHY"
I am saying that, just in a different way. "phy startup failure" means the same as "Could not initialize PHY", but the wording matches the rest of the function.