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:   Wed, 11 Aug 2021 23:20:19 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Prasanna Vengateshan <prasanna.vengateshan@microchip.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, Woojung.Huh@microchip.com,
        hkallweit1@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vivien.didelot@gmail.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 05/10] net: dsa: microchip: add DSA support
 for microchip lan937x
Message-ID: <20210811202019.seskua7bzagxis7u@skbuf>
References: <YQfvXTEbyYFMLH5u@lunn.ch>
 <20210802135911.inpu6khavvwsfjsp@skbuf>
 <50eb24a1e407b651eda7aeeff26d82d3805a6a41.camel@microchip.com>
 <20210803235401.rctfylazg47cjah5@skbuf>
 <20210804095954.GN22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <20210804104625.d2qw3gr7algzppz5@skbuf>
 <YQ6pc6EZRLftmRh3@lunn.ch>
 <20191b895a56e2a29f7fee8063d9cc0900f55bfe.camel@microchip.com>
 <YRQViFYGsoG3OUCc@lunn.ch>
 <20210811201414.GX22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210811201414.GX22278@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 09:14:14PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > I hope that using "*-internal-delay-ps" for Mac would be the right option.
> > > Shall i include these changes as we discussed in next revision of the patch? 
> > 
> > Yes, that seems sensible. But please limit them to the CPU port. Maybe
> > return -EINVAL for other ports.
> 
> Hmm. Don't we want ports that are "MAC like" to behave "MAC like" ?
> In other words, shouldn't a DSA port that can be connected to an
> external PHY should accept the same properties as a conventional
> Ethernet MAC e.g. in a SoC device?

+1, I thought the whole purpose of the discussion was to stop singling
out the CPU port as being special in any way w.r.t. RGMII delays.