Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 8 May 2021 18:29:21 +0200
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v4 26/28] net: dsa: permit driver to provide
 custom phy_mii_mask for slave mdiobus
Message-ID: <YJa8YYSA21gUYhIl@Ansuel-xps.localdomain>
References: <20210508002920.19945-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20210508002920.19945-26-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <086f92b8-8c91-f618-f5cb-9df18f890f13@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <086f92b8-8c91-f618-f5cb-9df18f890f13@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 08:52:03AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/7/2021 5:29 PM, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > Some switch doesn't have a 1:1 map phy to port. Permit driver to provide
> > a custom phy_mii_mask so the internal mdiobus can correctly use the
> > provided phy reg as it can differ from the port reg.
> > The qca8k driver is provided as a first user of this function.
> 
> Why not have qca8k be in charge of allocating its internal MDIO bus like
> what mv88e6xxx or bcm_sf2 do? That would allow you to do all sorts of
> customization there and you could skip having patches 23 and 24.

Oh ok, I will implement the internal MDIO bus directly in the qca8k
driver. Was thinking... Should I keep the extra mdio node and move the
documentation to qca8k or should I handle all of that internally?
To me it looks cleaner the direct definition in the devicetree than the 
port_to_phy function in the driver but as you can see extra checks are
required to handle the new implementation and still supports the old
one.