On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 16:48:02 +0000 "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 05:30:48PM +0100, Marek Behún wrote: > > But rswitch already uses phylink, so should Yoshihiro convert it whole > > back to phylib? (I am not sure how much phylink API is used, maybe it > > can stay that way and the new phylib function as proposed in Yoshihiro's > > previous proposal can just be added.) > > In terms of "how much phylink API is used"... well, all the phylink > ops functions are currently entirely empty. So, phylink in this case > is just being nothing more than a shim between the driver and the > corresponding phylib functions. > Yoshihiro, sorry for this. If not for my complaints, your proposal could already be merged (maybe). Anyway, I think the best solution would be to implement phylink properly, even for cases that are not relevant for your board*, but this would take a non-trivial amount of time, so I will understand if you want to stick with phylib. * Altough you don't use fixed-link or SFP on your board, I think it should be possible to test it somehow if you implemented it... For example, I have tested fixed-link between SOC and switch SerDes by configuring it in device-tree on both sides. Marek
