From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/3] net: phy: sfp: Warn when using
 generic PHY driver
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2018 15:38:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20181106.153844.1612363235041286689.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20181106232913.17216-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch, rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk
To: f.fainelli@gmail.com
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:55464 "EHLO
        shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730960AbeKGJG1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 7 Nov 2018 04:06:27 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20181106232913.17216-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  6 Nov 2018 15:29:10 -0800

> This patch series allows warning an user that the generic PHY driver(s)
> are used when a SFP incorporates a PHY (e.g: 1000BaseT SFP) which is
> likely not going to work at all.
> 
> Let me know if you would want to do that differently.

Is there ever a possibility that the generic PHY driver could work
in an SFP situation?

If not, yes emit the message but also fail the load and registry too
perhaps?