On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 08:16:16AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 02:10:01PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 07:35:19AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:47:16AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > > Currently, the phy subsystem uses ENOSYS for dummy blob functions, > > > > it does not reflect the function state correctly. As kernel already > > > > has EOPNOTSUPP for disabled blob function, replace ENOSYS with > > > > EOPNOTSUPP for a clear return value. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/phy/phy.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > > > Based on the other patches in this series, this patch now breaks the > > > users, right? Shouldn't this all happen at once? > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > It will break, and the change should happen at one. But I think > > the affect should be limited as it only affect a special edge > > case: build kernel with CONFIG_GENERIC_PHY disabled. So the > > break should be limited. > > > > IIRC I was told to seperate the patch into small part so each > > maintainer can take its own. Is it fine to squash these patches > > into one in this a case? > > You can't break bisection of the tree, so if it all has to happen in one > commit, that's required. >
Good to know, I will squash them. > But really, why is this needed at all? Who will benefit from this > change? > This change make the phy subsystem aligned with other subsystem like clk, reset... they both use -EOPNOTSUPP. After checking the comment in errno.h. I think this is more clear to provide the information about unsupported function. The related discussion is at https://lore.kernel.org/linux-phy/20260907114837.2y55l7dfqqrgcka2@skbuf/ After some discussion, Vladimir think it is possible to go, so I send this patch as an improvement. Regards, Inochi
