RE: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation done

[Camelia Alexandra Groza]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netdev-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:netdev-
> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Camelia Alexandra Groza
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 15:47
> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx;
> davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation done
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@xxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 17:39
> > To: Camelia Alexandra Groza <camelia.groza@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: use generic clause 45 autonegotiation
> > done
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 04:12:15PM +0300, Camelia Groza wrote:
> > > Only Clause 22 PHYs can use genphy_aneg_done(). Use
> > > genphy_c45_aneg_done() for PHYs that implement Clause 45 without
> the
> > > Clause 22 register set.
> > >
> > > This change follows the model of phy_restart_aneg() which
> > > differentiates between the two implementations in a similar way.
> >
> > Hi Camelia
> >
> > What about phy_config_aneg()? I would assume any sort of auto-neg
> > action needs to check for c45 without c22, before calling a genphy_
> > function. Do you think it is possible to write a
> > genphy_c45_config_aneg()? If not, we might want to return -
> EOPNOTSUPP.
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Adding Russell to the thread as well, since he wrote the c45 helpers.
> 
> Sure, I'll send a v2 with an additional generic phy_config_aneg(). I'll stick to
> returning -EOPNOTSUPP for c22-less PHYs for now.

Since the phy_config_aneg() call isn't synced on the net tree yet, I sent the second patch independently on net-next [1]. Please review this patch separately if it's ok.

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/947831/

Thank you,
Camelia