> Hence my previous comment that we should consider this an escape > hatch rather than the last word in how to describe networking on > ACPI/SBSA platforms. One problem i have is that this patch set suggests ACPI can be used to describe complex network hardware. It is opening the door for others to follow and add more ACPI support in networking. How long before it is not considered an escape hatch, but the front door? For an example, see https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/1595417547-18957-3-git-send-email-vikas.singh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ It is hard to see what the big picture is here. The [0/2] patch is not particularly good. But it makes it clear that people are wanting to add fixed-link PHYs into ACPI. These are pseudo devices, used to make the MAC think it is connected to a PHY when it is not. The MAC still gets informed of link speed, etc via the standard PHYLIB API. They are mostly used for when the Ethernet MAC is directly connected to an Ethernet Switch, at a MAC to MAC level. Now i could be wrong, but are Ethernet switches something you expect to see on ACPI/SBSA platforms? Or is this a legitimate use of the escape hatch? Andrew
