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, 7 Jun 2021 14:12:31 +0100
From:   "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@microchip.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Madalin Bucur <madalin.bucur@oss.nxp.com>,
        Mark Einon <mark.einon@gmail.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@netronome.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Bjarni Jonasson <bjarni.jonasson@microchip.com>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 04/10] net: sparx5: add port module support
Message-ID: <20210607131231.GF22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20210604085600.3014532-1-steen.hegelund@microchip.com>
 <20210604085600.3014532-5-steen.hegelund@microchip.com>
 <20210607092136.GA22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <d5ffe24ce7fbe5dd4cc0b98449b0594b086e3ba9.camel@microchip.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d5ffe24ce7fbe5dd4cc0b98449b0594b086e3ba9.camel@microchip.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:46:44PM +0200, Steen Hegelund wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> On Mon, 2021-06-07 at 10:21 +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > It looks to me like the phylink code in your patch series is based on
> > an older version of phylink and hasn't been updated for the split PCS
> > support - you seem to be munging the PCS parts in with the MAC
> > callbacks. If so, please update to the modern way of dealing with this.
> > 
> > If that isn't the case, please explain why you are not using the split
> > PCS support.
> 
> I need to be able to let the user set the speed to get the link up.
> 
> So far I have only been able to get the user configured speeds via the mac_ops, but if this is also
> possible via the pcs_ops, there should not anything preventing me from using these ops instead.
> 
> Will the pcs_ops also support this?

I really don't understand what you're saying here, so I can't answer.

What exactly do you mean "user configured speeds" ? Please give
examples of exactly what you're wanting to do.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!