On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 12:56:15PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

quoted

Last time [1], Saravana suggested to move this to the end of the series to
avoid such problems. FWIW, I just tried booting a LS1046A with the
following patches applied

01/11 (compatibles) 05/11 (device) 08/11 (link) 09/11 (consumer)
=================== ============== ============ ================
Y                   N              Y            N
Y                   Y              Y            Y
Y                   Y              Y            N
N                   Y              Y            N
N                   N              Y            N

and all interfaces probed each time. So maybe it is safe to pick
this patch.

Maybe? Just take it with the rest of the series.

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Let's have Vladimir ack this. I'm not sure if it's fully safe yet. I
haven't done the necessary fixes for phy-handle yet, but I don't know
how pcs-handle and pcsphy-handle are used or if none of their uses
will hit the chicken and egg problem that some uses of phy-handle hit.

I can confirm that on today's net-next, the driver owning the pcs-handle
will probe even if the PCS driver is missing. With the mention that it
only does so after the driver_deferred_probe_timeout, which also in
today's net-next is by default 10 seconds if CONFIG_MODULES=y.