Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: phy: realtek: support unaligned RTL8224 PHY packages

[Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2026 at 08:12:24PM +0300, Oskari Lemmelä wrote:
> 
> On 10/8/26 11:18, netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
> > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
> > issue(s) to consider.
> > 
> > Critical: 0 · High: 0 · Medium: 1 · Low: 1
> > 
> > If you believe none of the issues are legitimate, please reply to each
> > issue of Medium severity or higher and explain why the AI is wrong.
> > If any of them are legitimate and you plan to respin, please let patchwork
> > know by including "pw-bot: cr" as a separate line at the end of your reply
> > (one such reply per series is enough).
> > 
> > - [Medium] The RTL8224 text added to realtek,rtl82xx.yaml (preceding
> >    commit "dt-bindings: net: realtek,rtl82xx: document RTL8224 packages")…
> > - [Low] The new RTL8224 package example in realtek,rtl82xx.yaml
> >    (preceding commit "dt-bindings: net: realtek,rtl82xx: document RTL8224…
> > 
> > --
> > 
> The aligned-address fallback is retained for existing device trees
> without package nodes. Without an explicit package description, the
> driver cannot reliably distinguish aligned and unaligned layouts from
> individual PHY addresses.
> 
> Would clarifying that a package node is required for unaligned RTL8224
> layouts be sufficient to address the medium finding, while preserving
> the fallback for existing aligned layouts?

Probably. This is the AI being a bit picky. 

> 
> For the schema-coverage concern, would adding a dedicated RTL8224
> package binding with a compatible such as "realtek,rtl8224-package"
> be the preferred approach? This could follow the QCA807x package-binding
> pattern and provide explicit validation of the package and child PHYs.

A dedicated realtek,rtl8224-package binding probably does make
sense. You need some documentation anyway.

       Andrew