On 7/24/26 5:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
[...]
+++ b/drivers/net/fsl_enetc.c
@@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ static inline int xpcs_phy_usxgmii_pma_config(struct udevice
*dev)
{
return 0;
}
+
+static inline int xpcs_phy_sgmii_1g_config(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
The trailing newline before #endif is not needed.
#endif
[...]
+++ b/drivers/net/fsl_enetc_xpcs_phy.c
@@ -1471,6 +1471,15 @@ int imx95_xpcs_phy_sgmii_1g_config(struct udevice *dev)
return 0;
}
+int xpcs_phy_sgmii_1g_config(struct udevice *dev)
+{
+ if (is_imx95())
+ return imx95_xpcs_phy_sgmii_1g_config(dev);
+
+ dev_dbg(dev, "SGMII 1G config skipped\n");
+ return -ENODEV;
+}
Shouldn't the changes to drivers/net/fsl_enetc_xpcs_phy.c be in patches
1/3 or 2/3 ?
Also, shouldn't there be "int xpcs_phy_sgmii_1g_config(struct udevice
*dev);" in some header file ?
