Re: [PATCH v4 phy-next 0/9] RCW override for 10G Lynx dynamic protocol reconfiguration

[Vladimir Oltean]

Hi Christophe,

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:01:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:15:54AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Ioana Ciornei (4):
> >   soc: fsl: guts: use a macro to encode the DCFG CCSR space
> >   soc: fsl: guts: add a global structure to hold state
> >   soc: fsl: guts: add a central fsl_guts_read() function
> >   soc: fsl: guts: make it easier to determine on which SoC we are
> >     running
> > 
> > Vladimir Oltean (5):
> >   soc: fsl: guts: perform fsl_guts_init() error teardown in reverse
> >     order of setup
> >   soc: fsl: guts: make fsl_soc_data available after fsl_guts_init()
> >   dt-bindings: fsl: layerscape-dcfg: define DCFG_DCSR region
> >   soc: fsl: guts: implement the RCW override procedure
> >   phy: lynx-10g: use RCW override procedure for dynamic protocol change
> 
> Even though I intended these changes for linux-phy (they are also
> build-tested there), I'm fine either with these changes taken through
> Vinod's tree with Christophe's ACK for patches 1-8, or through
> Christophe's tree with Vinod's ACK for patch 9, really.
> 
> I see on Patchwork there's a minor issue in the commit message of patch 3/9:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-phy/patch/20260721231603.67865-4-vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx/
> "WARNING: 'struture' may be misspelled - perhaps 'structure'?"
> 
> Could this be fixed up while applying, if there is no other feedback?

Do you have feedback/a preference for how these patches should be handled?

I see Vinod acked patch 9, so I guess that means his preference would be
for you to pick up the entire series (which is indivisible).

I checked that the patches apply to your soc_fsl branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chleroy/linux.git/?h=soc_fsl

Thanks!
Vladimir