[PATCH v4 3/5] phy: core: Add phy bulk data helper functions

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 04:52:33PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> Add several helper functions that allow drivers to get several phy
> consumers in one operation. If any of the phy cannot be acquired then
> any phys that were got will be put before returning to the caller.
> 
> This can relieve the driver owners' life who needs to handle many phys,
> as well as each phy error reporting.

...

> +/**
> + * of_phy_get_count() - Get the number of phys of a device node
> + * @np: device_node for which to get the phy
> + *
> + * Return: the phy count if successful, %0 if no phy handle is found,
> + * negative error value if error occurs.
> + */
> +static int of_phy_get_count(const struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +	int count;
> +
> +	count = of_count_phandle_with_args(np, "phys", "#phy-cells");

> +

I would drop this blank line.

> +	if (count == -ENOENT)
> +		return 0;

I'm not sure about usefulness of this kind of trick in the _count API.

> +	return count;
> +}

...

> +static void phy_bulk_put(struct device *dev, unsigned int num_phys,
> +			 struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	while (num_phys--) {

> +		if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(phys[num_phys].phy))

This should be part of phy_put(). In general many kernel resource release APIs
are NULL and/or error pointer aware. This is a slow path and it makes user's life
easier

> +			phy_put(dev, phys[num_phys].phy);
> +		phys[num_phys].phy = NULL;
> +	}
> +}

...

> +static void of_phy_bulk_put(unsigned int num_phys, struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	while (num_phys--) {
> +		of_phy_put(phys[num_phys].phy);

> +		phys[num_phys].phy = NULL;

Is NULLification mandatory?

> +	}
> +}

...

> +static int of_phy_bulk_get_by_index(struct device_node *np,
> +				    unsigned int num_phys,
> +				    struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	unsigned int i;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < num_phys; i++) {
> +		phys[i].id = NULL;
> +		phys[i].phy = NULL;
> +	}

But why? The below does the assognments.

> +	for (i = 0; i < num_phys; i++) {
> +		of_property_read_string_index(np, "phy-names", i, &phys[i].id);

> +		phys[i].phy = of_phy_get_by_index(np, i);
> +
> +		ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phys[i].phy);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			phys[i].phy = NULL;

Same Q: do we need a NULLification in this case? Perhaps the respective APIs
should be error pointer aware?

> +			goto err;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +
> +err:
> +	of_phy_bulk_put(i, phys);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

...

> +/**
> + * phy_bulk_exit() - exit multiple PHYs
> + * @num_phys: number of entries in the phys array
> + * @phys: array of struct phy_bulk_data to exit
> + *
> + * Exits the PHYs in reverse array order. All PHYs are processed even if an
> + * error occurs.
> + *
> + * Return: %0 if successful, the first negative error code otherwise
> + */
> +int phy_bulk_exit(unsigned int num_phys, struct phy_bulk_data *phys)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	while (num_phys--) {
> +		err = phy_exit(phys[num_phys].phy);
> +		if (err && !ret)
> +			ret = err;
> +	}
> +
> +	return ret;

So, we return an arbitrary error and inconsistent state of the phys[] array.
What can caller do about all this? Any type of recovery? TL;DR:
I put in doubt the function prototype and the implementation (error handling).

> +}

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko