On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 11:12:27AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 05:41:34PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 04:43:36PM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > > Hey all, > > > > > > As part of working on "allyesconfig" support I ran into the following > > > problem. Both drivers/net/phy/mscc.c and drivers/net/phy/vitesse.c > > > implement support for the VSC8584 PHY. The vitesse.c driver is much > > > older and only had VSC8584 support added for a specific Freescale > > > Layerscape platform whereas mscc.c is modern and been updated with > > > newer PHYs as well. And we need one driver to support this phy, not two. > > > I am inclined to remove support from vitesse.c. However, only 4 > > > platforms use the PHY_MSCC driver and everyone else uses PHY_VITESSE. > > > > > > I'm cc'ing all of the board maintainers (other than PowerPC platforms) > > > that use PHY_VITESEE today to see what their feedback is on which way to > > > go here. I'm ignoring PowerPC because that can just stay on the > > > PHY_VITESSE driver based on timing of changes in git log. > > > > The mpfs icicle board is using PHY_VITESSE because the phy it has > > (vsc8662) is only supported by that driver. Same in Linux for that phy. > > We've got no users of the model you're talking about. > > > > FWIW, I checked our "in house" linux config and it uses the generic phy > > driver, rather than the vitesse one. I wonder if we can get away with > > that in U-Boot too? > > I was a little unclear in my wording of the problem, sorry. So just > staying on PHY_VITESSE is fine (it's not being removed) or switching to > the generic phy driver (likely smaller binary in the end?) is fine.
No no, I got what you were saying. Was just also wondering if the "imply PHY_VITESSE" that we have on the board could be removed. I'd never paid attention to that before and implying it seems a bit unneeded if the generic driver works fine.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
