This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
net: mdio: realtek-rtl9300: Add polling documentation

This commit adds a comment block to the rtl9300 MDIO driver describing
how the Realtek Otto switches' hardware polling unit interacts with the
MDIO bus and what this implies for kernel-initiated PHY accesses.

[ ... ]

+ *	phy_read(phy, 5);		phy_read(phy, 14);
+ *	phy_read(phy, 6);
+ *
+ * The c22 over c45 register 13/14 sequences read MDIO_AN_EEE_ADV and MDIO_AN_EEE_LPABLE. As soon
+ * as one PHY status is read, the polling engine goes over to the next PHY. Basically the bus is
+ * always busy and the MAC status is updated in realtime.

[ ... ]

+ * - A c45 over c22 kernel access sequence is most likely to fail because chances are high that
+ *   the polling engine overwrites registers 13/14 in between.

[Low]
The two paragraphs above describe the same mechanism — using Clause 22
transactions on registers 13 (MII_MMD_CTRL) and 14 (MII_MMD_DATA) to
indirectly access Clause 45 MMD registers — but use opposite wordings:
"c22 over c45" in the first paragraph and "c45 over c22" in the second.

The example writes shown earlier in the same comment (phy_write(phy, 13,
0x7); phy_write(phy, 14, 0x3c); ...) are the standard C22 indirect access
to C45 MMD registers, conventionally referred to in the kernel as
"C45 over C22".

Since the stated goal of this comment is to simplify future development
and review, would it make sense to use the same phrasing in both places
(for instance "C45 over C22" in both)?