[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509889a3-f633-40b0-8349-9ef378818cc7@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 19:40:49 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Yisen Zhuang <yisen.zhuang@...wei.com>,
Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@...wei.com>,
Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Marek BehĂșn <kabel@...nel.org>,
Xu Liang <lxu@...linear.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 03/11] net: phy: replace is_c45 with
phy_accces_mode
> static inline bool phy_has_c45_registers(struct phy_device *phydev)
> {
> - return phydev->is_c45;
> + return phydev->access_mode != PHY_ACCESS_C22;
> }
So this is making me wounder if we have a clean separation between
register spaces and access methods.
Should there be a phy_has_c22_registers() ?
A PHY can have both C22 registers and C45 registers. It is up to the
driver to decide which it wants to access when.
Should phydev->access_mode really be phydev->access_mode_c45_registers
to indicate how to access the C45 registers if phy_has_c45_registers()
is true?
Has there been a review of all uses of phydev->is_c45 to determine if
the user wants to know if C45 registers exist,
a.k.a. phy_has_c45_registers(), or if C45 bus transactions can be
performed, and then later in this series, additionally if C45 over C22
can be performed. These are different things.
I need to keep reading the patches...
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists