[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9qWT11Ckf0g+whv@lunn.ch>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 17:41:51 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 08/23] net: phy: migrate phy_init_eee() to
genphy_c45_eee_is_active()
> int phy_init_eee(struct phy_device *phydev, bool clk_stop_enable)
> {
> + int ret;
> +
> if (!phydev->drv)
> return -EIO;
>
> - /* According to 802.3az,the EEE is supported only in full duplex-mode.
> - */
> - if (phydev->duplex == DUPLEX_FULL) {
This got me for a while, where did the duplex check go?
But you now compare the local advertised EEE and the link peer EEE.
Since it is impossible to advertise a half duplex mode, the result can
never contain a half duplex mode.
I've done the work now, but a comment about this in the commit message
would of been nice.
FYI: Thanks for converting all users of the old functions. I was not
expecting that.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists