Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: introduce phydev->port

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Am 2021-02-10 12:54, schrieb Russell King - ARM Linux admin:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:20:02PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>> 
>> Am 2021-02-09 17:38, schrieb Michael Walle:
>> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
>> > @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ void phy_ethtool_ksettings_get(struct phy_device
>> > *phydev,
>> >  	if (phydev->interface == PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_MOCA)
>> >  		cmd->base.port = PORT_BNC;
>> >  	else
>> > -		cmd->base.port = PORT_MII;
>> > +		cmd->base.port = phydev->port;
>> >  	cmd->base.transceiver = phy_is_internal(phydev) ?
>> >  				XCVR_INTERNAL : XCVR_EXTERNAL;
>> >  	cmd->base.phy_address = phydev->mdio.addr;
>> 
>> Russell, the phylink has a similiar place where PORT_MII is set. I 
>> don't
>> know if we'd have to change that, too.
> 
> What would we change it to?

It was just a question whether we have to change it and I take from your
answer we do not. I was just curious because there is the same edge case
for the PORT_BNC like in the phy core.

> If there's no PHY attached and no SFP, what kind of interface do we
> have? As we've no idea what's on the media side, assuming that we are
> presenting a MII-like interface to stuff outside of what we control is
> entirely reasonable.
> 
> Claiming the world is TP would be entirely wrong, there may not be a
> RJ45 jack. Consider the case where the MAC is connected to a switch.
> It's a MII-like link. It's certianly not TP, BNC, fiber, AUI, or
> direct attach.

Yes, I get your point.

-michael