From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] net: phy: sfp: Warn when using generic PHY driver Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:42:10 -0800 Message-ID: <4d69c29a-0711-4d43-7556-72d16c402b08@gmail.com> References: <20181106232913.17216-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <20181106.153844.1612363235041286689.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:39985 "EHLO mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1731011AbeKGJKD (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Nov 2018 04:10:03 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id i17-v6so15464638wre.7 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2018 15:42:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20181106.153844.1612363235041286689.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/6/18 3:38 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Florian Fainelli > Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:29:10 -0800 > >> This patch series allows warning an user that the generic PHY driver(s) >> are used when a SFP incorporates a PHY (e.g: 1000BaseT SFP) which is >> likely not going to work at all. >> >> Let me know if you would want to do that differently. > > Is there ever a possibility that the generic PHY driver could work > in an SFP situation? Given the PHY has to operate in SGMII mode, I doubt it could work without a specialized driver, Andrew, Russell, would you concur? > > If not, yes emit the message but also fail the load and registry too > perhaps? > I was not sure this would be acceptable, but it is definitively an easy change. -- Florian