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:   Mon, 10 May 2021 14:44:23 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, kernel@pengutronix.de,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 8/9] net: phy: micrel: ksz886x/ksz8081: add
 cabletest support
Message-ID: <YJkqpxF9gu1XYdAs@lunn.ch>
References: <20210505092025.8785-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20210505092025.8785-9-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <YJKT173qkYZ+Iyp6@lunn.ch>
 <20210510090656.eiqlwp7t7hkvsxq3@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210510090656.eiqlwp7t7hkvsxq3@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 11:06:56AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:47:19PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:20:24AM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > This patch support for cable test for the ksz886x switches and the
> > > ksz8081 PHY.
> > > 
> > > The patch was tested on a KSZ8873RLL switch with following results:
> > > 
> > > - port 1:
> > >   - cannot detect any distance
> > >   - provides inverted values
> > >     (Errata: DS80000830A: "LinkMD does not work on Port 1",
> > >      http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/KSZ8873-Errata-DS80000830A.pdf)
> > >     - Reports "short" on open or ok.
> > >     - Reports "ok" on short.
> > 
> > Quite broken. Distance is optional, simply don't report it.  Status is
> > harder. Reporting ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_OK should really mean
> > the cable is O.K. If you cannot tell open from O.K, i would return
> > ETHTOOL_A_CABLE_RESULT_CODE_UNSPEC.
> > 
> 
> Yes, patch "net: phy: micrel: add patch for erratas on port1" provides
> a flag to return -ENOTSUPP on this port.
> 
> Is it acceptable way? Should I squash this patches?

This is O.K. Maybe add a comment that later patches in the series with
handle the errata?

       Andrew