Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4.1 11/56] mvneta: add forgotten initialization of autonegotiation bits | From | Stas Sergeev <> | Date | Wed, 8 Jul 2015 23:15:54 +0300 |
| |
08.07.2015 22:36, Arnaud Ebalard пишет: > Hi, > > Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> writes: > >>>> Another problem was reported: >>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/8/865 >>>> >>>> So, while the above patch is correct and fixes what >>>> it should, the original patch has more problems to deal >>>> with. Maybe for stable it would be better to just revert >>>> the whole thing? >>> No, you will have to fix this in Linus's tree, right? So I'll take the >>> patch that you get into there when that happens, I don't want to diverge >>> from what is in that tree. >> For Linus tree I am planning a new DT property to explicitly >> enable the inband status. I don't see any quick fix suitable for >> -stable, and new DT property will likely not be quickly accepted. >> If you don't want a revert, then the stable will likely have that >> regression for quite long, that's the warning. > I do not think the problem is to have a revert in -stable, it's more > having in in Linus tree *first* ;-) > >> OTOH, the revert will remove the support for my board, so I >> won't be able to even test it, which is also not perfect. > ATM, the priority is more on fixing the regressions the initial patch > caused *for existing boards*. There were at least three boards which got > hit by first regression during 4.1-rc That one is fixed, so doesn't count.
> and a new one on the table now > that 4.1 is out. For that we don't know the impact yet. I asked Sebastien Rannou about what HW he has connected via sgmii link and why does he use a fixed-link. If it is just some strange HW that does not generate the inband status where it should, perhaps it is not such a big deal to rush reverting it from Linus tree.
> I understand your reluctance to revert the patch that > made mvneta work for your custom board but it's unfair for others that > are hit by the regressions it causes and have to spend time > bisecting/fixing it. I am not reluctant for a revert, I in fact _propose_ the revert for -stable. As for mainline - yes, I'd really rather just do a proper fix there, as there is probably not a big deal to wait just for a little longer till the proper fix is discussed. But since Greg have spoken against the divergence, I am currently in an undecided state. I guess I'll code the fix first, then will see. Hope the news will be tomorrow.
> Anyway, if you come w/ a fix, I can commit to test it on the boards I > have. Thanks, I'll keep you CCed.
| |