Hi Johan and Vinod, I modified the Realtek phy to solve this issue and only use the generic PHY. And submitted these patches today as follows https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20231107063518.27824-1-stanley_chang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20231107063518.27824-2-stanley_chang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20231107063518.27824-3-stanley_chang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20231107063518.27824-4-stanley_chang@xxxxxxxxxxx/ I don't think this patch is needed to revert a08799cf17c2 ("usb:phy: New usb phy notification port status API"). Thanks, Stanley > On 06-11-23, 12:15, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 12:06:51PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > The recently added Realtek PHY drivers depend on the new port status > > > notification mechanism which was built on the deprecated USB PHY > > > implementation and devicetree binding. > > > > > > Specifically, using these PHYs would require describing the very > > > same PHY using both the generic "phy" property and the deprecated > "usb-phy" > > > property which is clearly wrong. > > > > > > We should not be building new functionality on top of the legacy USB > > > PHY implementation even if it is currently stuck in some kind of > > > transitional limbo. > > > > > > Revert the new Realtek PHY drivers for now so that the port status > > > notification interface can be reverted and replaced before we dig > > > ourselves into an even deeper hole with this PHY mess. > > > > > > Note that there are no upstream users of these PHYs and the drivers > > > were only included in 6.6 so there should still be time to undo this. > > > > No users of these phy drivers yet? Why were they added? > > Not sure why, they didnt go thru phy ss! > > > > > > Preferably these should go in through Greg's tree for 6.7-rc1. > > > > I'll be glad to take this if I can get an ack for it. > > Pls do drop this: > > Acked-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > ~Vinod
