Thread (6 messages) 6 messages, 4 authors, 2025-07-10

Re: [RFC] comparing the propesed implementation for standalone PCS drivers

From: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson@linux.dev>
Date: 2025-07-10 23:58:59
Also in: lkml

On 7/10/25 18:50, Sean Anderson wrote:
/* In mac_probe() or whatever */
scoped_guard(mutex)(&pcs_remove_lock) {
	/* Just imagine some terrible contortions for compatibility here */
	struct phylink_pcs *pcs = pcs_get(dev, "my_pcs");
	if (IS_ERR(pcs))
		return PTR_ERR(pcs);

	list_add(pcs->list, &config.pcs_list);
One thing we could do would be to add a mac_priv field to the PCS that the
MAC could stick some kind of identifier in. I could live with that.

But I still don't like how you'd need to hold a lock across pcs_get/
phylink_create. It feels like an unwieldy API.
	ret = phylink_create(config, dev->fwnode, interface,
			     &mac_phylink_ops);
	if (ret)
		return ret;
}
/* At this point the PCS could have already been removed */
--Sean
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help