Hello Marek, On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Marek Behún wrote: > Dear Vladimir, > > am I understanding correctly that your main objection to this series is > that it may break other drivers? Yes, but I'm not saying this in a way that tries to make it impossible to make progress. But rather, I've identified 8 drivers which may lack complete device tree descriptions: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220723164635.1621911-1-vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx/ Simply put, I have no indication that the changes presented here are a step in the right direction for the remaining 7 drivers. Each and every single one of them needs to be studied and discussed separately; the discussion has already started for some. > Do you think it would be okay if I changed it so that only mv88e6xxx > driver would ask for phylink for CPU/DSA ports? It would be a good start, yes. What I could do is I could move my validation logic from the patch linked above into dsa_port_link_register_of(). Running that logic would let DSA know which properties are missing. Then, for drivers that don't enforce validation, we could add new dsa_switch_ops that separately ask the driver what phy-mode to use (if missing) and what speed/duplex to use (if missing). Drivers can use whatever heuristic is appropriate for their deployments to respond to this. If the phy-mode and speed/duplex are finally resolved, DSA can create a software_node and register with phylink that way. Otherwise, DSA will continue to do what it does today, i.e. skip phylink registration. How does that sound?
