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:   Fri, 19 May 2023 15:30:28 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Alexis =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lothor=E9?= <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= <kabel@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com,
        paul.arola@telus.com, scott.roberts@telus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: enable support for
 88E6361 switch
Message-ID: <85c07e51-8a0b-4328-bab3-acad2ee104e1@lunn.ch>
References: <20230517203430.448705-1-alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
 <20230517203430.448705-3-alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
 <9a836863-c279-490f-a49a-de4db5de9fd4@lunn.ch>
 <ee281c0f-5e8b-8453-08bf-858c5503dc22@bootlin.com>
 <6643e099-7b72-4da2-aba1-521e1a4c961b@lunn.ch>
 <20230519143713.1ac9c7a1@thinkpad>
 <7419ffc0-b292-97c4-fee6-610a1a841265@bootlin.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7419ffc0-b292-97c4-fee6-610a1a841265@bootlin.com>
Precedence: bulk

> >> Ports 1 and 2 should hopefully be protected by the
> >> invalid_port_mask. It should not even be possible to create those
> >> ports. port 0 is interesting, and possibly currently broken on
> >> 6393. Please take a look at that.
> > 
> > Why would port 0 be broken on 6393x ?
> By "broken", I guess Andrew means that if we feed port 0 to
> mv88e6xxx_phy_is_internal, it will return true, which is wrong since there is no
> internal phy for port 0 on 6393X ?

Yes, that is what i was thinking. But i did not spend the time to look
at the code see if this is actually true. There might be a special
case somewhere in the code.

But in general, we try to avoid special cases, and add device specific
ops.

	Andrew