From: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: at803x: remove at803x_aneg_done()
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 17:38:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae201dadd6842f533aaa2e1440209784@walle.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ee24b531-df8b-fa3d-c7fd-8c529ecba4c8@gmail.com>
Am 2021-03-18 17:21, schrieb Heiner Kallweit:
> On 18.03.2021 16:17, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:54:00PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 18.03.2021 15:23, Michael Walle wrote:
>>>> at803x_aneg_done() is pretty much dead code since the patch series
>>>> "net: phy: improve and simplify phylib state machine" [1]. Remove
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it's not dead, it's resting .. There are few places where
>>> phy_aneg_done() is used. So you would need to explain:
>>> - why these users can't be used with this PHY driver
>>> - or why the aneg_done callback isn't needed here and the
>>> genphy_aneg_done() fallback is sufficient
>>
>> The piece of code that Michael is removing keeps the aneg reporting as
>> "not done" even when the copper-side link was reported as up, but the
>> in-band autoneg has not finished.
>>
>> That was the _intended_ behavior when that code was introduced, and
>> you
>> have said about it:
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/stable/msg389193.html
>>
>> | That's not nice from the PHY:
>> | It signals "link up", and if the system asks the PHY for link
>> details,
>> | then it sheepishly says "well, link is *almost* up".
>>
>> If the specification of phy_aneg_done behavior does not include
>> in-band
>> autoneg (and it doesn't), then this piece of code does not belong
>> here.
>>
>> The fact that we can no longer trigger this code from phylib is yet
>> another reason why it fails at its intended (and wrong) purpose and
>> should be removed.
>>
> I don't argue against the change, I just think that the current commit
> description isn't sufficient. What you just said I would have expected
> in the commit description.
I'll come up with a better one, Vladimir, may I use parts of the text
above?
-michael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-18 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-18 14:23 Michael Walle
2021-03-18 14:54 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-03-18 15:17 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-03-18 16:21 ` Heiner Kallweit
2021-03-18 16:38 ` Michael Walle [this message]
2021-03-18 17:04 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-03-18 17:09 ` Heiner Kallweit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ae201dadd6842f533aaa2e1440209784@walle.cc \
--to=michael@walle.cc \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®