On Mon, 1 Dec 2025 14:07:58 +0530 Vinod Koul wrote:

quoted

quoted

Push the supported mask of polarities to these helpers, to simplify
drivers such that they don't need to validate what's in the device tree
(or other firmware description).

The proposed maintainership model is joint custody between netdev and
linux-phy, because of the fact that these properties can be applied to
Ethernet PCS blocks just as well as Generic PHY devices. I've added as
maintainers those from "ETHERNET PHY LIBRARY", "NETWORKING DRIVERS" and
"GENERIC PHY FRAMEWORK".  

I dunno.. ain't no such thing as "joint custody" maintainership.
We have to pick one tree. Given the set of Ms here, I suspect 
the best course of action may be to bubble this up to its own tree.
Ask Konstantin for a tree in k.org, then you can "co-post" the patches
for review + PR link in the cover letter (e.g. how Tony from Intel
submits their patches). This way not networking and PHY can pull
the shared changes with stable commit IDs.  

How much is the volume of the changes that we are talking about, we can
always ack and pull into each other trees..?

We have such ad-hoc situations with multiple subsystems. Letting
Vladimir and co create their own tree is basically shifting the 
work of managing the stable branches from netdev maintainers
downstream. I'd strongly prefer that we lean on git in this way, 
rather than reenact the 3 spiderman meme multiple times in each
release.