On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 03:34:06PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 15:29, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 03:16:36PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 17:45, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > However, that leaves the question why bbc4d71d63549bcd was backported,
> > > > > although I understand why the discussion is a bit trickier there. But
> > > > > if it did not fix a regression, only broken code that never worked in
> > > > > the first place, I am not convinced it belongs in -stable.
> > > >
> > > > Please ask Serge Semin what platform he tested on. I kind of expect it
> > > > worked for him, in some limited way, enough that it passed his
> > > > testing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll make a note here that a rather large number of platforms got
> > > broken by the same fix for the Realtek PHY driver:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=bbc4d71d6354
> > >
> > > I seriously doubt whether disabling TX/RX delay when it is enabled by
> > > h/w straps is the right thing to do here.
> >
> > The device tree is explicitly asking for rgmii. If it wanted the
> > hardware left alone, it should of used PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA.
> >
>
> Would you suggest that these DTs remove the phy-mode instead? As I
> don't see anyone proposing that.
What is also O.K, for most MAC drivers. Some might enforce it is
present, in which case, you can set it to "", which will get parsed as
PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA. But a few MAC drivers might configure there MII
bus depending on the PHY mode, RGMII vs GMII.
Andrew
