Hi Andrew On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 03:39:42PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > > As you know, making this code generic would bring us back to waiting for > > ACPI team's approval which is very difficult to get as the ACPI doesn't > > have any opinion on MDIO bus. > > > > Like other ACPI ethernet drivers, can't we keep it local to this driver to > > avoid the above issue? > > Hi Calvin > > That does not scale. Every driver doing its own thing. Each having its > own bugs, maintenance overheads, documentation problems, no meta > validation of the ACPI tables because every table is different, > etc. Where is the Advanced in that? It sounds more like Primitive, > Chaotic, Antiquated? > > Plus having it generic means there is one place which needs > modifications when the ACPI standards committee does decide how this > should be done. I'm very much aligned with your thoughts. Making this generic is the right approach according to me. Is it sufficient, if we get net subsystem approval? > > > If we plan to make this approach generic, then it may have to be put in: > > Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/ > > So looking in this directory, we have defacto standards, > e.g. linux/Documentation/firmware-guide/acpi/dsd/leds.rst. > > So lets add another defacto standard, how you find a PHY. Sure will add. Thanks Calvin
