Re: [PATCH net-next] doc: generic phy: update generic PHY documentation

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 10:01:57AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> I'm also going to point out that phy-core allows ->set_mode() to be
> unimplemented, yet the phy_mode is stored. It looks to me like this is
> intentional part of the API, which means that phy_set_mode*() is not
> expected to always result in the hardware being programmed. That
> brings up the obvious question: if phy_set_mode() is not expected to
> always reprogram the hardware, then what phy API call should follow
> this to ensure the hardware is reprogrammed.
> 
> On the other hand, if the API intention was that ->set_mode() must be
> implemented if phy_set_mode*() is to be accepted, then surely
> phy_set_mode_ext() should be checking that phy->ops->set_mode exists,
> and returning -EOPNOTSUPP if it doesn't.

This is a relatively new development.

commit d58c04e305afbaa9dda7969151f06c4efe2c98b0
Author: Dmitry Baryshkov <lumag@kernel.org>
Date:   Sun Feb 9 14:31:45 2025 +0200

    phy: core: don't require set_mode() callback for phy_get_mode() to work

    As reported by Damon Ding, the phy_get_mode() call doesn't work as
    expected unless the PHY driver has a .set_mode() call. This prompts PHY
    drivers to have empty stubs for .set_mode() for the sake of being able
    to get the mode.

    Make .set_mode() callback truly optional and update PHY's mode even if
    it there is none.

    Cc: Damon Ding <damon.ding@rock-chips.com>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/96f8310f-93f1-4bcb-8637-137e1159ff83@rock-chips.com
    Tested-by: Damon Ding <damon.ding@rock-chips.com>
    Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250209-phy-fix-set-moe-v2-1-76e248503856@linaro.org
    Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>

If only lore.kernel.org wasn't down, so I could see the back story in
the link...