Re: [PATCH net-next] net: phy: at803x: remove at803x_aneg_done()

[Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>]

On 18.03.2021 18:04, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 05:38:13PM +0100, Michael Walle wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> My words aren't copyrighted, so feel free, however you might want to
> check with Heiner too for his part, you never know.
> 
I'm not paid for the content of my mails, so feel free to quote.