[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y+4ma61Gf3G3D6Bh@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 13:49:47 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.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,
Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@....com>,
Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 7/7] net: fec: add support for PHYs with
SmartEEE support
> I would prefer to not touch phy_init_eee(). At least not in this patch
> set. With this function we have following situation:
We have a complete mess :-(
I spent yesterday re-writing the MAC driver side of EEE. Most get it
completely wrong, as you point out. So i changed the API a bit, making
it more like other negotiated things, so i hope developers will get it
correct in the future. I will post an RFC/RFT series soon.
> Hm.. I need to admit, EEE should not be advertised by default. Only
> if MAC driver calls something like phy_support_eee(), we should start doing it.
This i've not looked at yet. But i agree.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists