From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 450D053A7; Mon, 8 Sep 2025 16:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757349102; cv=none; b=sAjxZNShPphER1RKCENy+EBbSx6oxWqmABds+pV9mXynuf9GCmzyMKkbxIvxr0YpZiPoS16578sSE79UHyx6bgdcwo1zNXZYb/upTRRho1qfbWrjIlXHgOEBTRpWeFYbKyWQUHC/nayRHISRHbTEGF4dIWZxuFoQ1cuz1PhEDOI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757349102; c=relaxed/simple; bh=BNhOSYUA6dV025eeEzqqyBra5dstFqJVY8zkhmbYHQ4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ur5XhzEb6ZGvGjTgrVzFHQQZcEoAw0ottS7LyjBmb54tSly08JAUopRcbj08knmj+3bK4VeOlfyPfsj6oKZtXFnBpMiqHQNusNSDz5C2kYhzy9hVEXc+25tUZZroi202nqJCUC2P7WiheDJCVd4IqqsKIG7yIQcmz+w5BGXl4PM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b=W9Mo7MdW; arc=none smtp.client-ip=156.67.10.101 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.b="W9Mo7MdW" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=LIElx5qF61apSsdG1Fx3DhG/2w7M7nxVDbU41a9FSDY=; b=W9Mo7MdWsP4e5bRYUNvEvzYlUn xImUsquQ2nZLKTBnAY/64ACPI0qwoUi3eMvFHmcmUa0LhS4UAboIMfE5tRfu83zkyk6nGuY0SFQEm zAxaBzN+3YSn8ROG2FLsbNvkyqHsqDtFMx/YTw2ph+xGD2q+MS1i60MCU1MJHUcHKgrY=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1uvem9-007glG-Vj; Mon, 08 Sep 2025 18:31:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2025 18:31:29 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Rosen Penev Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Sunil Goutham , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , "moderated list:ARM/CAVIUM THUNDER NETWORK DRIVER" , open list Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 2/2] net: thunder_bgx: use OF loop instead of fwnode Message-ID: <002d8e1a-ca2e-41e7-8751-429c2ee728c3@lunn.ch> References: <20250904213228.8866-1-rosenp@gmail.com> <20250904213228.8866-3-rosenp@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250904213228.8866-3-rosenp@gmail.com> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 02:32:28PM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > This is implemented under CONFIG_OF_MDIO, which already assumes an OF > node. I'm not sure that is correct. bgx_probe() -> bgx_init_phy() -> bgx_init_of_phy() static int bgx_init_phy(struct bgx *bgx) { if (!acpi_disabled) return bgx_init_acpi_phy(bgx); return bgx_init_of_phy(bgx); } There is no check made to see if this is an ACPI node and so bgx_init_acpi_phy() is called. So it might be an ACPI node is passed to bgx_init_of_phy(). How have you tested this code? On an ACPI machine, or only a DT machine? Andrew