Re: [PATCH net-next v9 03/10] net: phylink: Register a phy_port for MAC-driven SFP busses

[Maxime Chevallier]

Hi Andrew,

On 4/15/26 01:38, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > This phy_port represents the SFP cage itself, and not the module
>
> > +static int phylink_create_sfp_port(struct phylink *pl)
>
> I'm thinking about naming here. If this represent the cage, why not
> call this phylink_create_sfp_cage_port(). I assume as some point there
> is going to be something for the module, and it seem like the naming
> is going to be confusing.
>
> > +{
> > +	struct phy_port *port;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +	if (!pl->netdev || !pl->sfp_bus)
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	port = phy_port_alloc();
> > +	if (!port)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	port->is_sfp = true;
> > +	port->is_mii = true;
> > +	port->active = true;
>
> If this is a cage, not a module, does is_sfp = true make sense?
>
> And what does an active cage mean?

My bad I realised that I forgot to reply to this comment :( So, is_sfp 
is meant for sfp cages, I'll followup with some documentation update.

Active means we want this port to be used. For now, every port we 
represent is active. The next step for that work will implement the 
muxing and port switchover logic, where the active ports will represent 
the ones that actually got the link. For now, we don't have the logic
to expose and use that.

In retrospect, It's something that should've been added in later steps.

Maxime

> 	Andrew