Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: remove Kconfig symbol MDIO_DEVRES

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 02:49:05PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 11:46:08AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 08:17:17AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> > > MDIO_DEVRES is only set where PHYLIB/PHYLINK are set which
> > > select MDIO_DEVRES. So we can remove this symbol.
> > 
> > Does it make sense for mdio_devres to be a separate module from libphy?
> 
> I _think_ Broadcom have one MDIO bus master which is not used for
> PHYs/Switches but regulators or GPIOs or something. In theory, you
> could build a kernel without networking, but still use those
> regulators or GPIOs. But given that Broadcom SoCs are all about
> networking, it does seem like a very unlikely situation.

I'm pointing out that:

libphy-y                        := phy.o phy-c45.o phy-core.o phy_device.o \
                                   linkmode.o phy_link_topology.o \
                                   phy_package.o phy_caps.o mdio_bus_provider.o

mdio_bus_provider.o provides at least some of the functions used by
mdio_devres.

obj-$(CONFIG_PHYLIB)            += mdio_devres.o
obj-$(CONFIG_PHYLIB)            += libphy.o

So, when PHYLIB=m, we end up with mdio_devres and libphy as two separate
loadable modules. I'm questioning whether this makes any sense, or
whether making mdio_devres part of libphy would be more sensible.

Maybe the only case is if mdio_devres adds dependencies we don't want
libphy to have, but I think that needs to be spelt out in the commit.


-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!