Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: sparx5: Add Sparx5 switchdev driver

From: Andrew Lunn <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 16:34:59 +0100

> Hmm.  I will have to revisit this again.  The intent was to be able to
> destinguish between regular PHYs and SFPs (as read from the DT).
> But maybe the phylink_of_phy_connect function handles this
> automatically...

Yes, you should not have to differentiate between an SFP and a
traditional copper PHY. phylink will handle it all.

> > 
> > > +void sparx5_destroy_netdev(struct sparx5 *sparx5, struct sparx5_port *port)
> > > +{
> > > +     if (port->phylink) {
> > > +             /* Disconnect the phy */
> > > +             if (rtnl_trylock()) {
> > 
> > Why do you use rtnl_trylock()?
> 
> The sparx5_port_stop() in turn calls phylink_stop() that expects the lock
> to be taken.  Should I rather just call rtnl_lock()?

Yes, you don't want to not call phylink_stop().

     Andrew