Re: [PATCH net-next 08/13] net: phylink: Represent PHY-less SFP modules with phy_port

[Maxime Chevallier]

On 28/01/2026 17:01, Romain Gantois wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2026 14:41:56 CET Maxime Chevallier wrote:
> ...
>> @@ -1786,13 +1787,31 @@ static int phylink_create_sfp_port(struct phylink
>> *pl) else
>>
>>  		pl->sfp_bus_port = port;
>>
>> +	if (pl->mod_port) {
>> +		ret = phy_link_topo_add_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			goto out_bus_port;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +out_bus_port:
>> +	phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, port);
> 
> This seems strange to me. Why clean up after phy_link_topo_add_port() if it 
> returned an error code? Presumably phy_link_topo_add_port() cleans up after 
> itself if it encounters an error doesn't it?

Because we're not cleaning up the same port, notice the 'port' vs
'pl->mod_port' params :)

> 
>> +	phy_port_destroy(port);
>>
>>  	return ret;
>>  
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void phylink_destroy_sfp_port(struct phylink *pl)
>>  {
>>
>> -	if (pl->netdev && pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> -		phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> +	if (pl->netdev) {
>> +		if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>> +			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
>> +
>> +		/* Only remove it from the topology, it will be destroyed at
>> +		 * module removal.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (pl->mod_port)
>> +			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
>> +	}
>>
>>  	if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
>>  	
>>  		phy_port_destroy(pl->sfp_bus_port);
>>
>> @@ -3998,6 +4017,49 @@ static void phylink_sfp_disconnect_phy(void
>> *upstream, phylink_disconnect_phy(upstream);
>>
>>  }
>>
>> +static int phylink_sfp_connect_nophy(void *upstream)
> 
> I'd name this "phylink_sfp_connect_no_phy" just to keep the name formatting 
> consistent.

having 'nophy' as a single word made it clearer that this was "phy" vs
"nophy" IMO, rather than potentially interpreting "phy" as a suffix. but
I see your point, I think I'll rename it :)

Maxime

> 
> Thanks,
>