Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Sat, 2 Dec 2023 20:09:10 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Justin Lai <justinlai0215@realtek.com>, davem@davemloft.net,
        edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pkshih@realtek.com, larry.chiu@realtek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v13 01/13] rtase: Add pci table supported in
 this module
Message-ID: <0a2b5646-9d24-4a22-b1e3-87517e7cadb1@lunn.ch>
References: <20231130114327.1530225-1-justinlai0215@realtek.com>
 <20231130114327.1530225-2-justinlai0215@realtek.com>
 <20231201203602.7e380716@kernel.org>
 <27b2b87a-929d-4b97-9265-303391982d27@lunn.ch>
 <20231202105845.12e27e31@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231202105845.12e27e31@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

> I'm mainly asking to make sure we avoid "implicitly programming" the
> switch, like, IIUC, one of the TI drivers did. And we ended up with
> multiple versions / modes of operation :( Sounds like this driver
> doesn't touch switch registers yet, tho, so all good.

I asked questions about this earlier, should it be a pure switchdev
switch, or a DSA switch, etc. So i think we have that basic questions
covered.

	Andrew