[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a3d0502-01dd-4ffa-aab3-3bf97a4bc2f0@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 21:20:32 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-phy: remove
eee-broken flags which have never had a user
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 09:55:55PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> These flags have never had a user, so remove support for them.
They have never been used, but they are a logical description of the
bits in the EEE registers. Do we think vendors have gotten better with
EEE and are less likely to get it wrong at these higher speeds? Are we
deleting them to just bring them back later? I don't know.
I don't think there is any maintenance burden from them, so i would
just leave them?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists