> > @@ -290,6 +291,10 @@ static int gpy_probe(struct phy_device *phydev)
> > phydev->priv = priv;
> > mutex_init(&priv->mbox_lock);
> >
> > + if (gpy_has_broken_mdint(phydev) &&
> > + !device_property_present(dev,
> > "maxlinear,use-broken-interrupts"))
> > + phydev->irq = PHY_POLL;
> > +
>
> I'm not sure of ordering here. It could be phydev->irq is set after
> probe. The IRQ is requested as part of phy_connect_direct(), which is
> much later.
I've did it that way, because phy_probe() also sets phydev->irq = PHY_POLL
in some cases and the phy driver .probe() is called right after it.
Yes, it is a valid point to do this check, but on its own i don't
think it is sufficient.
> I think a better place for this test is in gpy_config_intr(), return
> -EOPNOTSUPP. phy_enable_interrupts() failing should then cause
> phy_request_interrupt() to use polling.
Which will then print a warning, which might be misleading.
Or we disable the warning if -EOPNOTSUPP is returned?
Disabling the warning is the right thing to do.