Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2023 13:34:31 +0000 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/9] phy: phy-ocelot-serdes: add ability to be used in a non-syscon configuration |
| |
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 02:19:44PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 17-03-23, 11:54, Colin Foster wrote: > > > The phy-ocelot-serdes module has exclusively been used in a syscon setup, > > > from an internal CPU. The addition of external control of ocelot switches > > > via an existing MFD implementation means that syscon is no longer the only > > > interface that phy-ocelot-serdes will see. > > > > > > In the MFD configuration, an IORESOURCE_REG resource will exist for the > > > device. Utilize this resource to be able to function in both syscon and > > > non-syscon configurations. > > > > Applied to phy/next, thanks > > Please read the netdev FAQ. Patches sent to netdev contain the tree that > the submitter wishes the patches to be applied to. > > As a result, I see davem has just picked up the *entire* series which > means that all patches are in net-next now. net-next is immutable. > > In any case, IMHO if this kind of fly-by cherry-picking from patch > series is intended, it should be mentioned during review to give a > chance for other maintainers to respond and give feedback. Not all > submitters will know how individual maintainers work. Not all > maintainers know how other maintainers work.
Once again netdev seems to have applied patches from other subsystems without review/ack. What makes netdev different to any other kernel subsystem? What would happen if other random maintainers started applying netdev patches without appropriate review? I suspect someone would become understandably grumpy.
-- Lee Jones [李琼斯]
| |