From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A62BC0044D for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C85C2074B for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=armlinux.org.uk header.i=@armlinux.org.uk header.b="JF1Rwxip" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729182AbgCKUc4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:56 -0400 Received: from pandora.armlinux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:59360 "EHLO pandora.armlinux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725834AbgCKUcz (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:55 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armlinux.org.uk; s=pandora-2019; h=Sender:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=filNL41M+8g9UDlvxvVFpr8uUIgTsbcC+lpBeiHu+tE=; b=JF1RwxipL5nAiAvy+I24l3ouO wNrp5aktsNXJqVIUvMQH1wG4wFsM6H9cEUR+CJR3FJ1J1I01y6a2/earo/qoGheMYGlOPWJulZ3Nq BnVFHKFnJ82eONVBsyiZN3hTSTYya//NmxqNcNTVG+PpV+iJ7D03Y7whupiXBLv1C1936+tBm8ZRr C2E1j+NgFtKhVJNRDJBMfVi6p+CM/juuU5/byFIJtPYX/7qJuZHk8H0UWWz1HV9Yz7xE9Wxgri70w H65W5Z4aeeAfjOcr+//vL6D9l9ZsR8njKlDP3CINMhHucoH+3g/QPj57c6XpYOhfAe4YjJA23LSUL w2tAKkn/Q==; Received: from shell.armlinux.org.uk ([fd8f:7570:feb6:1:5054:ff:fe00:4ec]:35138) by pandora.armlinux.org.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jC823-0005Nu-QR; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:47 +0000 Received: from linux by shell.armlinux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jC821-0005cW-La; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:45 +0000 Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:45 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux admin To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Heiner Kallweit , "David S. Miller" , netdev Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: phylink: pcs: add 802.3 clause 22 helpers Message-ID: <20200311203245.GS25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20200311120643.GN25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200311170918.GQ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200311193223.GR25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 09:59:18PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 21:32, Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > So, why abuse some other subsystem's datastructure for something that > > is entirely separate, potentially making the maintanence of that > > subsystem more difficult for the maintainers? I don't get why one > > would think this is an acceptable approach. > > > > What you've said is that you want to use struct phy_device, but you > > don't want to publish it into the device model, you don't want to > > use mdio accesses, you don't want to use phylib helpers. So, what's > > the point of using struct phy_device? I don't see _any_ reason to > > do that and make things unnecessarily more difficult for the phylib > > maintainers. > > > > So if it's such a big mistake... > > > > > Sorry, but you need to explain better what you would like to see here. > > > > The additions I'm adding are to the SGMII specification; I find your > > > > existing definitions to be obscure because they conflate two different > > > > bit fields together to produce something for the ethtool linkmodes > > > > (which I think is a big mistake.) > > > > > > I'm saying that there were already LPA_SGMII definitions in there. > > > There are 2 "generic" solutions proposed now and yet they cannot agree > > > on config_reg definitions. Omitting the fact that you did have a > > > chance to point out that big mistake before it got merged, I'm > > > wondering why you didn't remove them and add your new ones instead. > > > The code rework is minimal. Is it because the definitions are in UAPI? > > > If so, isn't it an even bigger mistake to put more stuff in UAPI? Why > > > would user space care about the SGMII config_reg? There's no user even > > > of the previous SGMII definitions as far as I can tell. > > > > I don't see it as a big deal - certainly not the kind of fuss you're > > making over it. > > > > ...why keep it? > I'm all for creating a common interface for configuring this. It just > makes me wonder how common it is going to be, if there's already a > driver in-tree, from the same PCS hardware vendor, which after the > patchset you're proposing is still going to use a different > infrastructure. Do you see any reason why felix_vsc9959 couldn't make use of the code I'm proposing? -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up