On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 11:28:42AM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > On 7/19/22 11:25 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 12:05:10PM -0400, Sean Anderson wrote: > >> For a long time, PCSs have been tightly coupled with their MACs. For > >> this reason, the MAC creates the "phy" or mdio device, and then passes > >> it to the PCS to initialize. This has a few disadvantages: > >> > >> - Each MAC must re-implement the same steps to look up/create a PCS > >> - The PCS cannot use functions tied to device lifetime, such as devm_*. > >> - Generally, the PCS does not have easy access to its device tree node > >> > >> I'm not sure if these are terribly large disadvantages. In fact, I'm not > >> sure if this series provides any benefit which could not be achieved > >> with judicious use of helper functions. In any case, here it is. > >> > >> NB: Several (later) patches in this series should not be applied. See > >> the notes in each commit for details on when they can be applied. > > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but the networking drivers on NXP LS1028A > > (device tree at arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi, drivers > > at drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/ and drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/) > > do not use the Lynx PCS through a pcs-handle, because the Lynx PCS in > > fact has no backing OF node there, nor do the internal MDIO buses of the > > ENETC and of the switch. > > > > It seems that I need to point this out explicitly: you need to provide > > at least a working migration path to your PCS driver model. Currently > > there isn't one, and as a result, networking is broken on the LS1028A > > with this patch set. > > > > Please refer to patches 4, 5, and 6. I don't understand, could you be more clear? Are you saying that I shouldn't have applied patch 9 while testing? When would be a good moment to apply patch 9?
