Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] phy: add phy_get_rx_polarity() and phy_get_tx_polarity()

From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
	"Daniel Golle" <daniel@makrotopia.org>,
	"Horatiu Vultur" <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
	"Andrew Lunn" <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	"Heiner Kallweit" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Vinod Koul" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
	"Matthias Brugger" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	"AngeloGioacchino Del Regno"
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	"Eric Woudstra" <ericwouds@gmail.com>,
	"Marek Beh√∫n" <kabel@kernel.org>, "Lee Jones" <lee@kernel.org>,
	"Patrice Chotard" <patrice.chotard@foss.st.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/9] phy: add phy_get_rx_polarity() and phy_get_tx_polarity()
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 19:02:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251125170257.pk4cish65mcoeqhn@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251124200121.5b82f09e@kernel.org>

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 08:01:21PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > The proposed maintainership model is joint custody between netdev and
> > linux-phy, because of the fact that these properties can be applied to
> > Ethernet PCS blocks just as well as Generic PHY devices. I've added as
> > maintainers those from "ETHERNET PHY LIBRARY", "NETWORKING DRIVERS" and
> > "GENERIC PHY FRAMEWORK".
> 
> I dunno.. ain't no such thing as "joint custody" maintainership.
> We have to pick one tree. Given the set of Ms here, I suspect 
> the best course of action may be to bubble this up to its own tree.
> Ask Konstantin for a tree in k.org, then you can "co-post" the patches
> for review + PR link in the cover letter (e.g. how Tony from Intel
> submits their patches). This way not networking and PHY can pull
> the shared changes with stable commit IDs.

I can see how this makes some sense. If nobody has any objection, I'll
follow up to this by emailing Konstantin about a git tree for shared
infrastructure between generic PHY and networking.

> We can do out-of-sequence netdev call tomorrow if folks want to talk
> this thru (8:30am Pacific)

Not sure it's that big of a discussion topic.

> > +GENERIC PHY COMMON PROPERTIES
> > +M:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> > +M:	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> > +M:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> > +M:	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
> > +M:	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
> > +M:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>
> > +M:	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> > +R:	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> > +M:	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> 
> checkpatch nit: apparently it wants all Ms first, then all Rs.

Thanks for pointing this out.

This will probably have to be changed quite a bit in v2 if the "separate
git tree" idea is going to be implemented. I'll probably start with an
empty list and request volunteers to step up.

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy