Re: [PATCH v5 net-next] net: phy: mediatek: support MT7530 PHYs on EN71221 MCM

From: Caleb James DeLisle

Date: Thu Sep 17 2026 - 11:28:55 EST


On 17/09/2026 16:48, Daniel Golle wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 02:01:29PM +0200, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
On 15/09/2026 13:47, Daniel Golle wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 11:34:27AM +0000, Caleb James DeLisle wrote:
@@ -135,6 +199,23 @@ static struct phy_driver mtk_gephy_driver[] = {
*/
.config_intr = genphy_no_config_intr,
.handle_interrupt = genphy_handle_interrupt_no_ack,
+ .match_phy_device = mt7530_phy_match,
+ .suspend = genphy_suspend,
+ .resume = genphy_resume,
+ .read_page = mtk_phy_read_page,
+ .write_page = mtk_phy_write_page,
+ },
+ {
+ PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT(MTK_GPHY_ID_MT7530),
I'd suggest to actually use phy_id and phy_id_mask assigned by the
PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT macro by calling genphy_match_phy_device() in your
match functions above instead of open-coding the ID match.
Or drop PHY_ID_MATCH_EXACT from *both* drivers.
I suppose the latter is easier because then I don't have to re-think
mt7530_is_gphy() which would be lying if it wasn't actually checking ID is
MTK_GPHY_ID_MT7530.

I would have preferred to call genphy_match_phy_device() in your match
functions instead of open-coding phy_id_compare() which is best
reached via genphy_match_phy_device() in this situation -- that would
express the code intent in the most obvious way imho.


I did it this way because the name mt7530_is_gphy() implies "Is this an MT7530 gigabit PHY?" which if it doesn't match on MTK_GPHY_ID_MT7530 then that's not what it does so there's a little bit more thought involved.


If I'd have known this was really your preference I'd have done that, but I already just sent v6 so I guess I can send v7 tomorrow.


Thanks,

Caleb