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, 22 May 2023 18:42:17 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     David Epping <david.epping@missinglinkelectronics.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/3] net: phy: mscc: enable VSC8501/2 RGMII RX clock
Message-ID: <20230522154217.ganjnt2bng5wxng6@skbuf>
References: <20230520160603.32458-1-david.epping@missinglinkelectronics.com>
 <20230520160603.32458-4-david.epping@missinglinkelectronics.com>
 <20230521134356.ar3itavhdypnvasc@skbuf>
 <20230521161650.GC2208@nucnuc.mle>
 <20230522095833.otk2nv24plmvarpt@skbuf>
 <20230522140057.GB18381@nucnuc.mle>
 <20230522151104.clf3lmsqdndihsvo@skbuf>
 <20230522152221.GA21090@nucnuc.mle>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230522152221.GA21090@nucnuc.mle>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 05:22:21PM +0200, David Epping wrote:
> > > Also we don't want to enable for
> > > all PHY types, and the differentiation is already available at the
> > > caller. I would thus opt for a separate function and fewer conditional
> > > statements.
> > 
> > I don't understand this. We don't? For what PHY types don't we want to
> > enable the RX_CLK?
> 
> I meant all PHYs using vsc85xx_rgmii_set_skews() via vsc8584_config_init().

Aha. By "PHY types" I thought you mean "PHY interface types" like RGMII/GMII/MII,
not PHY device models.

> As you pointed out they don't have a clear definition of what bit 11 means
> for them.

And I wasn't suggesting to make bit 11 part of the modified "mask" for them.

> But we can easily differentiate using the condition you suggested.
> I'll do that for the new patch version.

Sounds good, thanks.