On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:48:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 8:58 PM Calvin Johnson
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Define phylink_fwnode_phy_connect() to connect phy specified by
a fwnode to a phylink instance.

...

quoted

+       if (is_of_node(fwnode)) {
+               ret = phylink_of_phy_connect(pl, to_of_node(fwnode), flags);
+       } else if (is_acpi_device_node(fwnode)) {
+               phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
+               if (!phy_dev)
+                       return -ENODEV;
+               ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);
+       }

Looking at this more I really don't like how this if-else-if looks like.

I would rather expect something like

               phy_dev = phy_find_by_fwnode(fwnode);
               if (!phy_dev)
                       return -ENODEV;
               ret = phylink_connect_phy(pl, phy_dev);

Where phy_find_by_fwnode() will take care about OF or any other
possible fwnode cases.

phy_find_by_fwnode() has a different purpose from that of
phylink_fwnode_phy_connect(). Current implementation looks good to me as it
clearly takes different paths for DT and ACPI cases.

Thanks
Calvin