[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241022073403.GP402847@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:34:03 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Jacky Chou <jacky_chou@...eedtech.com>
Cc: "andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 回覆: [net v2] net: ftgmac100:
refactor getting phy device handle
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 07:13:56AM +0000, Jacky Chou wrote:
> Hi Simon
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> > > The ftgmac100 supports NC-SI mode, dedicated PHY and fixed-link PHY.
> > > The dedicated PHY is using the phy_handle property to get phy device
> > > handle and the fixed-link phy is using the fixed-link property to
> > > register a fixed-link phy device.
> > >
> > > In of_phy_get_and_connect function, it help driver to get and register
> > > these PHYs handle.
> > > Therefore, here refactors this part by using of_phy_get_and_connect.
> >
> > Hi Jacky,
> >
> > I understand the aim of this patch, and I think it is nice that we can drop about
> > 20 lines of code. But I did have some trouble understanding the paragraph
> > above. I wonder if the following is clearer:
> >
> > Consolidate the handling of dedicated PHY and fixed-link phy by taking
> > advantage of logic in of_phy_get_and_connect() which handles both of
> > these cases, rather than open coding the same logic in ftgmac100_probe().
> >
>
> Agree. I will change the commit message.
> Thank you for helping me fine-tune this message.
>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jacky Chou <jacky_chou@...eedtech.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - enable mac asym pause support for fixed-link PHY
> > > - remove fixes information
> >
> > I agree that this is not a fix. And should not have a Fixes tag and so on.
> > But as such it should be targeted at net rather than net-next.
> >
> > Subject: [net-next vX] ...
> >
> > The code themselves changes look good to me. But I think the two points above,
> > in combination, warrant a v3.
>
> I will send v3 patch to net-next tree.
Great, thanks Jacky.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists