Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] net: phylink: Represent PHY-less SFP modules with phy_port

Maxime Chevallier
2026-01-30T13:36:25Z

On 28/01/2026 17:01, Romain Gantois wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2026 14:41:56 CET Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> ...
>> @@ -1786,13 +1787,31 @@ static int phylink_create_sfp_port(struct phylink
>> *pl) else
>>
>> pl->sfp_bus_port = port;
>>
>> + if (pl->mod_port) {
>> + ret = phy_link_topo_add_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out_bus_port;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +out_bus_port:
>> + phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, port);
>
> This seems strange to me. Why clean up after phy_link_topo_add_port() if it
> returned an error code? Presumably phy_link_topo_add_port() cleans up after
> itself if it encounters an error doesn't it?

Because we're not cleaning up the same port, notice the 'port' vs
'pl->mod_port' params :)

>
>> + phy_port_destroy(port);
>>
>> return ret;
>>
>> }
>>
>> static void phylink_destroy_sfp_port(struct phylink *pl)
>> {
>>
>> - if (pl->netdev && pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> - phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> + if (pl->netdev) {
>> + if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> + phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> +
>> + /* Only remove it from the topology, it will be destroyed at
>> + * module removal.
>> + */
>> + if (pl->mod_port)
>> + phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> + }
>>
>> if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>>
>> phy_port_destroy(pl->sfp_bus_port);
>>
>> @@ -3998,6 +4017,49 @@ static void phylink_sfp_disconnect_phy(void
>> *upstream, phylink_disconnect_phy(upstream);
>>
>> }
>>
>> +static int phylink_sfp_connect_nophy(void *upstream)
>
> I'd name this "phylink_sfp_connect_no_phy" just to keep the name formatting
> consistent.

having 'nophy' as a single word made it clearer that this was "phy" vs
"nophy" IMO, rather than potentially interpreting "phy" as a suffix. but
I see your point, I think I'll rename it :)

Maxime

>
> Thanks,
>