On 9/30/2024 5:18 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> I think this is getting overly complex, so let's rewind a bit. >> >> I believe Abhishek mentioned in a previous review what the differences >> are between what the PHY reports when read, and what it actually >> supports, and the result was that there was not a single bit in the >> supported mask that was correct. I was hopeful that maybe Andrew would >> respond to that, but seems not to, so I'm putting this statement here. >> More on this below. > > Yes, i did not really realise how wrong Marvell got this. As you point > out, it is more wrong than right. > > My thinking with calling the usual feature discovery mechanism and > then fixing them up, is that we keep extending them. BaseT1 has been > added etc. If a PHY is mostly getting it right, we might in the future > get new features implemented for free, if the hardware correctly > declares them. But in this case, if it cannot get even the basics > mostly correct, there is little hope it will get more exotic features > correct. > > So, i agree in Russell. Forget about asking the hardware, just hard > code the correct features. > > Sorry for making you do extra work which you now need to discard. > No worries, Its better to discuss now than to regret later. I will make the changes accordingly and raise v5 today after testing. Thanks Russell/Maxime/Andrew. > However, please do keep it as two patches. It makes it easier to deal > with regressions on the device you cannot test if we can just revert > one patch. > > Andrew
