> So, given that this is only supposed to be used for mv88e6xxx because
> of it's legacy, maybe the check in dsa_port_phylink_create() should
> be:
>
> fwnode = of_fwnode_handle(dp->dn);
> if (fwnode && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {
>
> In other words, we only allow the replacement of the firmware
> description if one already existed.
That sounds reasonable.
> Alternatively, we could use:
>
> if (!dsa_port_is_user(dp) && ds->ops->port_get_fwnode) {
>
> since mv88e6xxx today only does this "max speed" thing for CPU and
> DSA ports, and thus we only need to replace the firmware description
> for these ports - and we can document that port_get_fwnode is only
> for CPU and DSA ports.
Also reasonable.
The first seems better for the Non-DT, where as the second makes it
clear it is supposed to be for CPU and DSA ports only.
Is it over the top to combine them?
Andrew
