Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] net: phy: dp83869: Support 1000Base-X SFP

+static void dp83869_module_remove(void *upstream)
+{
+	struct phy_device *phydev = upstream;
+
+	phydev_info(phydev, "SFP module removed\n");

I think this should probably be downgraded to phydev_dbg().

+static int dp83869_module_insert(void *upstream, const struct sfp_eeprom_id *id)
+{
+	struct phy_device *phydev = upstream;
+	const struct sfp_module_caps *caps;
+	struct dp83869_private *dp83869;
+	int ret;
+
+	caps = sfp_get_module_caps(phydev->sfp_bus);
+
+	if (!linkmode_test_bit(ETHTOOL_LINK_MODE_1000baseX_Full_BIT,
+			       caps->link_modes)) {
+		phydev_err(phydev, "incompatible SFP module inserted\n");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	dp83869 = phydev->priv;
+
+	dp83869->mode = DP83869_RGMII_1000_BASE;
+	phydev->port = PORT_FIBRE;
+
+	ret = dp83869_configure_mode(phydev, dp83869);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	/* Reconfigure advertisement */
+	if (mutex_trylock(&phydev->lock)) {
+		ret = dp83869_config_aneg(phydev);
+		mutex_unlock(&phydev->lock);

Why is it safe to call dp83869_configure_mode() without the lock, but
dp83869_config_aneg() does need the lock? And what are the
consequences of not being able to get the lock and so aneg is not
configured?

Some comments would be good here.

    Andrew

---
pw-bot: cr