Re: [PATCH 4.1 11/56] mvneta: add forgotten initialization of autonegotiation bits

From: Stas Sergeev
Date: Wed Jul 08 2015 - 16:16:14 EST


08.07.2015 22:36, Arnaud Ebalard ÐÐÑÐÑ:
Hi,

Stas Sergeev <stsp@xxxxxxx> 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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/