On Thu, 2025-06-26 at 10:02 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 12:53:34PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > > Historically, the RGMII PHY modes specified in Device Trees have been > > used inconsistently, often referring to the usage of delays on the PHY > > side rather than describing the board; many drivers still implement this > > incorrectly. > > > > Require a comment in Devices Trees using these modes (usually mentioning > > that the delay is realized on the PCB), so we can avoid adding more > > incorrect uses (or will at least notice which drivers still need to be > > fixed). > > > > Suggested-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > One question, how should this be merged? The two DT patches might want > to go via the TI DT Maintainer. And this patch via the checkpatch > Maintainer? Or do you plan to merge it some other way? The first two patches should go via net-next I think (the first is DT bindings only, the second one modifies the AM65-CPSW driver), although I would prefer to get a review/ack from a TI maintainer, too. I don't know what tree checkpatch usually goes through, MAINTAINERS doesn't list a specific repo. The whole series could be merged via net-next if that's fine with the checkpatch maintainers. Best, Matthias > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> > > Andrew -- TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018 Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider https://www.tq-group.com/
