[PATCH net-next 5/9] phy: add phy_get_rx_polarity() and phy_get_tx_polarity()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 01/12/2025 09:37, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 24-11-25, 20:01, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2025 21:33:37 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> Add helpers in the generic PHY folder which can be used using 'select
>>> GENERIC_PHY_COMMON_PROPS' from Kconfig, without otherwise needing to
>>> enable GENERIC_PHY.
>>>
>>> These helpers need to deal with the slight messiness of the fact that
>>> the polarity properties are arrays per protocol, and with the fact that
>>> there is no default value mandated by the standard properties, all
>>> default values depend on driver and protocol (PHY_POL_NORMAL may be a
>>> good default for SGMII, whereas PHY_POL_AUTO may be a good default for
>>> PCIe).
>>>
>>> Push the supported mask of polarities to these helpers, to simplify
>>> drivers such that they don't need to validate what's in the device tree
>>> (or other firmware description).
>>>
>>> The proposed maintainership model is joint custody between netdev and
>>> linux-phy, because of the fact that these properties can be applied to
>>> Ethernet PCS blocks just as well as Generic PHY devices. I've added as
>>> maintainers those from "ETHERNET PHY LIBRARY", "NETWORKING DRIVERS" and
>>> "GENERIC PHY FRAMEWORK".
>>
>> I dunno.. ain't no such thing as "joint custody" maintainership.
>> We have to pick one tree. Given the set of Ms here, I suspect 
>> the best course of action may be to bubble this up to its own tree.
>> Ask Konstantin for a tree in k.org, then you can "co-post" the patches
>> for review + PR link in the cover letter (e.g. how Tony from Intel
>> submits their patches). This way not networking and PHY can pull
>> the shared changes with stable commit IDs.
> 
> How much is the volume of the changes that we are talking about, we can
> always ack and pull into each other trees..?

That's just one C file, isn't it? Having dedicated tree for one file
feels like huge overhead.


Best regards,
Krzysztof