Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: enable support for 88E6361 switch

[Andrew Lunn]

> >> Ports 1 and 2 should hopefully be protected by the
> >> invalid_port_mask. It should not even be possible to create those
> >> ports. port 0 is interesting, and possibly currently broken on
> >> 6393. Please take a look at that.
> > 
> > Why would port 0 be broken on 6393x ?
> By "broken", I guess Andrew means that if we feed port 0 to
> mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, it will return true, which is wrong since there is no
> internal phy for port 0 on 6393X ?

Yes, that is what i was thinking. But i did not spend the time to look
at the code see if this is actually true. There might be a special
case somewhere in the code.

But in general, we try to avoid special cases, and add device specific
ops.

	Andrew