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, 14 Aug 2023 17:35:33 +0200
From:   Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     "Radu Pirea (NXP OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v1 2/5] net: phy: remove MACSEC guard
Message-ID: <ZNpJxca6SE4Mii2L@hog>
References: <20230811153249.283984-1-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
 <20230811153249.283984-3-radu-nicolae.pirea@oss.nxp.com>
 <056a153c-19d7-41bb-ac26-04410a2d0dc4@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <056a153c-19d7-41bb-ac26-04410a2d0dc4@lunn.ch>
Precedence: bulk

2023-08-11, 18:59:57 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 06:32:46PM +0300, Radu Pirea (NXP OSS) wrote:
> > Allow the phy driver to build the MACSEC support even if
> > CONFIG_MACSEC=N.
> 
> What is missing from this commit message is an answer to the question
> 'Why?'

The same question applies to patch #1. Why would we need a dummy
implementation of macsec_pn_wrapped when !CONFIG_MACSEC?

I guess it's to avoid conditional compilation of
drivers/net/phy/nxp-c45-tja11xx-macsec.c and a few ifdefs in the main
driver.

-- 
Sabrina