From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F8BC0044D for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:59:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED4F20739 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 19:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="snSTRMZw" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387432AbgCKT7b (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:59:31 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f66.google.com ([209.85.208.66]:46940 "EHLO mail-ed1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726738AbgCKT7a (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 15:59:30 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f66.google.com with SMTP id ca19so4392541edb.13 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 12:59:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LfF4RnkkEuzs5MYMqdO+D2HQ8LUmrlIKs0NRiXXJShk=; b=snSTRMZwBOMV9IsK3ozdFyW/RpjckiZxTztJySPuTuxCb8eoMl7K2F/BtFWwgk2cXw 5+jnW9RbFK2gy0ogvpVDfm/5s/+cg/BzwPCiiXl4KxNoxgQ7SV5Kp0QE6bZc33XFG7R7 c/CiBH1x2M0XdB9Q2gG3eQlvw/HstGwW8txDPwMrt2gB+MkFUzI5gCLITecA4zi0fWS4 kP60ugDJKGQ2Kpu3RoQPfDyVuMm4HICDKMbZP/6lDtNTb24G/TO6xaMF6yqRlXWTj6KK 8gGg7qMYE49sT1Io75gf97oA6dNwlZ8EeUWEguw3CgkTiz9wrnvZCOdo6i5TQvyyoze6 XSFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LfF4RnkkEuzs5MYMqdO+D2HQ8LUmrlIKs0NRiXXJShk=; b=LzFVxZ9fa6rIhs+UHJ/Aksi5vbie6zjPcgIxmxdaRDW9rtecWrP8S+CyQ0UnHxKy3l vyaPT5EjeWzu9hz6ikbZmG+9VjvIHXuz6Y63zdSgyVxTmJl5qHtCSuWP68WW2SC2+E2d 3HVn1AJvfQ5izIOkwc7Y1lZn4s0p5o/gt/NBtrxeJ6zEcADrdX8BYzoZFZ13LrbsdFqD T+BiFBm7xYhZ7s3SC+dQeHMTSx9Ss9cPgA8WwPPqLXE307UFNPcP81BU0dyaD7oX8oSs sLnfjgDPbMuZlJTIHAuR+SujtT/gkjzc8f8EMiN6J1gcOJ4EfZFEeLZWFHhSGpgvgGO5 S9Pg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0m0r5NpduAlE5wnfsKNVkRBBVpo7E4Yg6gRhuVwQgQkE5CUqX8 jrcf13GGTcPsOWgY/3DcSKSklptMi9JGv2UOpr0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvS5p6ZqjuU+U6ikVji6QMNrb3ibarAHChdQKY0ll0tZUvt6TfqBPM2ohHRSRZjDD6w9dWarYRiyzp7/FUwhCc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:e91:: with SMTP id p17mr3785918ejf.239.1583956769008; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 12:59:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200311120643.GN25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200311170918.GQ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> <20200311193223.GR25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20200311193223.GR25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk> From: Vladimir Oltean Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 21:59:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: phylink: pcs: add 802.3 clause 22 helpers To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin Cc: Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Heiner Kallweit , "David S. Miller" , netdev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 21:32, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > > So, why abuse some other subsystem's datastructure for something that > is entirely separate, potentially making the maintanence of that > subsystem more difficult for the maintainers? I don't get why one > would think this is an acceptable approach. > > What you've said is that you want to use struct phy_device, but you > don't want to publish it into the device model, you don't want to > use mdio accesses, you don't want to use phylib helpers. So, what's > the point of using struct phy_device? I don't see _any_ reason to > do that and make things unnecessarily more difficult for the phylib > maintainers. > So if it's such a big mistake... > > > Sorry, but you need to explain better what you would like to see here. > > > The additions I'm adding are to the SGMII specification; I find your > > > existing definitions to be obscure because they conflate two different > > > bit fields together to produce something for the ethtool linkmodes > > > (which I think is a big mistake.) > > > > I'm saying that there were already LPA_SGMII definitions in there. > > There are 2 "generic" solutions proposed now and yet they cannot agree > > on config_reg definitions. Omitting the fact that you did have a > > chance to point out that big mistake before it got merged, I'm > > wondering why you didn't remove them and add your new ones instead. > > The code rework is minimal. Is it because the definitions are in UAPI? > > If so, isn't it an even bigger mistake to put more stuff in UAPI? Why > > would user space care about the SGMII config_reg? There's no user even > > of the previous SGMII definitions as far as I can tell. > > I don't see it as a big deal - certainly not the kind of fuss you're > making over it. > ...why keep it? I'm all for creating a common interface for configuring this. It just makes me wonder how common it is going to be, if there's already a driver in-tree, from the same PCS hardware vendor, which after the patchset you're proposing is still going to use a different infrastructure. > -- > RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ > FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up Thanks, -Vladimir