> > Yes, it is a valid point to do this check, but on its own i don't > > think it is sufficient. > > Care to elaborate a bit? E.g. what is the difference to the case > the phy would have an interrupt described but no .config_intr() > op. > > > > > I think a better place for this test is in gpy_config_intr(), return > > > > -EOPNOTSUPP. phy_enable_interrupts() failing should then cause > > > > phy_request_interrupt() to use polling. > > > > > > Which will then print a warning, which might be misleading. > > > Or we disable the warning if -EOPNOTSUPP is returned? > > > > Disabling the warning is the right thing to do. > > There is more to this. .config_intr() is also used in > phy_init_hw() and phy_drv_supports_irq(). The latter would > still return true in our case. I'm not sure that is correct. > > After trying your suggestion, I'm still in favor of somehow > tell the phy core to force polling mode during probe() of the > driver. The problem is that the MAC can set the interrupt number after the PHY probe has been called. e.g. https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_mdio.c#L524 The interrupt needs to be set by the time the PHY is connected to the MAC, which is often in the MAC open method, much later than the PHY probe. Andrew
