Messages in this thread | | | From | Sean Anderson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] net: lan966x: add port module support | Date | Thu, 18 Nov 2021 11:18:11 -0500 |
| |
On 11/18/21 11:11 AM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:36:58AM -0500, Sean Anderson wrote: >> Hi Russell, >> >> On 11/18/21 8:31 AM, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:59:28PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote: >> > > The 11/18/2021 09:59, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: >> > > > Another approach would be to split phylink_mii_c22_pcs_decode_state() >> > > > so that the appropriate decode function is selected depending on the >> > > > interface state, which may be a better idea. >> > > >> > > I have tried to look for phylink_mii_c22_pcs_decode_state() and I >> > > have found it only here [1], and seems that it depends on [2]. But not >> > > much activity happened to these series since October. >> > > Do you think they will still get in? >> > >> > I don't see any reason the first two patches should not be sent. I'm >> > carrying the second one locally because I use it in some changes I've >> > made to the mv88e6xxx code - as I mentioned in the patchwork entry you >> > linked to. See: >> > >> > http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/log/?h=net-queue >> > >> > "net: phylink: Add helpers for c22 registers without MDIO" >> > >> > Although I notice I committed it to my tree with the wrong author. :( >> > >> > Sean, please can you submit the mdiodev patch and this patch for >> > net-next as they have general utility? Thanks. >> >> The mdiodev patch is already in the tree as 0ebecb2644c8 ("net: mdio: >> Add helper functions for accessing MDIO devices"). The c22 patch is >> submitted as [1]. >> >> --Sean >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20211022160959.3350916-1-sean.anderson@seco.com/ > > Patchwork says its deferrred: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20211022160959.3350916-1-sean.anderson@seco.com/ > > However, it does apply to current net-next, but Jakub did ask for > it to be resubmitted.
Well, he suggested that I would have to resubmit it. But I ordered the patches such that they would apply cleanly in what I thought was the most likely scenario (which indeed come to pass). So I didn't think it was necessary to resend.
> Given that patches are being quickly applied to net-next, I suggest > resubmission may be just what's neeeded!
Resent.
--Sean
| |