Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 20:36:52 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Jerry.Ray@microchip.com
Cc:     andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        jbe@pengutronix.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 5/6] dsa: lan9303: Determine CPU port based
 on dsa_switch ptr
Message-ID: <20221212183652.7wtzgcvtjgwsqwbr@skbuf>
References: <20221209224713.19980-1-jerry.ray@microchip.com>
 <20221209224713.19980-6-jerry.ray@microchip.com>
 <20221211224608.rdlcuqg4d37f7z66@skbuf>
 <MWHPR11MB1693284A37657C11F91ADFD0EFE29@MWHPR11MB1693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR11MB1693284A37657C11F91ADFD0EFE29@MWHPR11MB1693.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 05:42:01PM +0000, Jerry.Ray@microchip.com wrote:
> > It looks like there is potentially more code to unlock than this simple
> > API change, which is something you could look at.
> 
> I understand your point. The LAN9303 is very flexible, supporting an I2C
> method for managing the switch and allowing the xMII to operate as either
> MAC or PHY.
> 
> The original driver was written targeting the primary configuration most
> widely used by our customers. The host CPU has an xMII interface and the
> MDIO bus is used for control. Adding in the flexibility to support other
> configurations is something I will investigate as I expand the driver to
> support LAN9353/LAN9354/LAN9355 devices. Adding the
> private->info->supports_mii[] as was done in the ksz drivers is the most
> likely approach. I see this as a separate patch series.  Would you agree?
> 
> I will hardcode for port 0 at this point rather than looking at CPU port.

Yes, I think that would be ok. Thanks for at least not baking in any
more assumptions in the driver that already exist.