[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf015eee-0d09-4fc7-b214-f9b0db12016e@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 20:20:10 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/9] net: phy: Allow PHY drivers to report
isolation support
> +static bool phy_can_isolate(struct phy_device *phydev)
> +{
> + if (phydev->drv && phydev->drv->can_isolate)
> + return phydev->drv->can_isolate(phydev);
> +
> + return true;
Reading Russells comment, and the fact that this feature is nearly
unused, so we have no idea how well PHYs actually support this, i
would flip the logic. Default to false. A PHY driver needs to actively
sign up to supporting isolation, with the understanding it has been
tested on at least one board with two or more PHYs.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists