On 28/01/2026 17:01, Romain Gantois wrote:

On Tuesday, 27 January 2026 14:41:56 CET Maxime Chevallier wrote:
...

quoted

@@ -1786,13 +1787,31 @@ static int phylink_create_sfp_port(struct phylink

*pl) else

 		pl->sfp_bus_port = port;

+	if (pl->mod_port) {
+		ret = phy_link_topo_add_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
+		if (ret)
+			goto out_bus_port;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+out_bus_port:
+	phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, port);

This seems strange to me. Why clean up after phy_link_topo_add_port() if it 
returned an error code? Presumably phy_link_topo_add_port() cleans up after 
itself if it encounters an error doesn't it?

Because we're not cleaning up the same port, notice the 'port' vs
'pl->mod_port' params :)

quoted

+	phy_port_destroy(port);

 	return ret;
 
 }
 
 static void phylink_destroy_sfp_port(struct phylink *pl)
 {

-	if (pl->netdev && pl->sfp_bus_port)
-		phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
+	if (pl->netdev) {
+		if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
+			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->sfp_bus_port);
+
+		/* Only remove it from the topology, it will be destroyed at
+		 * module removal.
+		 */
+		if (pl->mod_port)
+			phy_link_topo_del_port(pl->netdev, pl->mod_port);
+	}

 	if (pl->sfp_bus_port)
 	
 		phy_port_destroy(pl->sfp_bus_port);

@@ -3998,6 +4017,49 @@ static void phylink_sfp_disconnect_phy(void

*upstream, phylink_disconnect_phy(upstream);

 }

+static int phylink_sfp_connect_nophy(void *upstream)

I'd name this "phylink_sfp_connect_no_phy" just to keep the name formatting 
consistent.

having 'nophy' as a single word made it clearer that this was "phy" vs
"nophy" IMO, rather than potentially interpreting "phy" as a suffix. but
I see your point, I think I'll rename it :)

Maxime

Thanks,