wt., 17 sty 2023 o 18:58 Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a): > > Hi Marcin, > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 05:20:01PM +0100, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > > > > > pon., 16 sty 2023 o 18:50 Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > napisał(a): > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 06:34:14PM +0100, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > > > > fixed-link PHYs API is used by DSA and a number of drivers > > > > and was depending on of_. Switch to fwnode_ so to make it > > > > hardware description agnostic and allow to be used in ACPI > > > > world as well. > > > > > > Would it be better to let the fixed-link PHY die, and have everyone use > > > the more flexible fixed link implementation in phylink? > > > > > , > > This patchset did not intend to introduce any functional change, simply > > switch to a more generic HW description abstraction. Killing > > of/fwnode_phy_(de)register_fixed_link entirely seems to be a challenge, as > > there are a lot of users beyond the DSA. Otoh I see a value in having > > of_/fwnode_phy_is_fixed_link check, afaik there is no equivalent in > > phylink... > > Phylink provides a much improved implementation of fixed-link that is > way more flexible than the phylib approach - it can implement speeds > in excess of 1G. DSA already supports phylink with modern updated > drivers that do not use the "adjust_link" implementation. > > What I'm proposing is that we don't bring the baggage of the phylib > based fixed link forwards into fwnode, and leave this to be DT-only. > I think this is what Andrew and Vladimir have also said. > Ok, thanks for clarifying. Best regards, Marcin
