[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aPkeNRyRtHOMs5h5@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 19:11:01 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] net: phylink: add phylink managed
wake-on-lan PHY speed control
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 04:28:19PM +0200, Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> > +
> > + if (phylink_phy_pm_speed_ctrl(pl))
> > + phy_speed_down(pl->phydev, false);
>
> Should this rather be phylink_speed_down, to take into account the fact
> that the PHY might be on SFP ? either here or directly in
> phylink_phy_pm_speed_ctrl() above ?
I think using phylink_speed_*() makes more sense than merging the test
into phylink_phy_pm_speed_ctrl(). If something changes in what we do
with speed_up/down() then we want everyone to be affected (not that I
forsee any change there.) Logically though...
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists