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, 16 Jun 2023 22:49:50 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     "Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
Cc:     hkallweit1@gmail.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
        richardcochran@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sebastian.tobuschat@nxp.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 06/14] net: phy: add 1000baseT1 to
 phy_basic_t1_features
Message-ID: <a1d6e35c-3f70-4cb1-978a-7b0cf3f63ffa@lunn.ch>
References: <20230616135323.98215-1-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
 <20230616135323.98215-7-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230616135323.98215-7-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 04:53:15PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> Add 1000baseT1 bit to phy_basic_t1_features.

Please add an explanation why this is safe. For example, why the
RTL9000AA does not start saying it supports 1000BaseT1_Full.

Has 1000BaseT1_Full been standardised? If there a feature bit in a
register to indicate the hardware supports it? That would be the
preferred method to determine what the hardware can do.

	Andrew