[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <GV1P190MB20195294C842E926C5684FA1E48B9@GV1P190MB2019.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:33:52 +0000
From: Oleksandr Mazur <oleksandr.mazur@...ision.eu>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Yevhen Orlov <yevhen.orlov@...ision.eu>,
Taras Chornyi <taras.chornyi@...ision.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net-next] net: marvell: prestera: add phylink support
Hello Russel,
First of all - sorry for the inconveniences with the rush of new versioned-patches, my bad; won't happen again
As for the comments:
> I didn't specifically ask about the ifdefs - I asked the general
> question about "why make phylink conditional for this driver".
> Yes, v1 had ifdefs. v2 does not, but phylink is _still_ conditional.
> You are introduing lots of this pattern of code:
Sorry i think i misunderstood your question of the <conditional> use of phylink driver.
The reason is the following: the current state of things with ports is that PHY ports are controlled by FW,
and we're using phylink only for SFP ports. We don't have an PHY regs read/write invocation interfaces from driver right now,
and thus PHY ports control is limited to controlling them from FW side only, for now.
> 3. As for AN restart, no, it's not yet supported by our FW as of now.
> Maybe put a comment in the code to that effect?
That would make sense, i will add a comment in the next patch version.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists