Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] mscc: ocelot: add support for SerDes muxing configuration

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Paul,

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:10:28AM -0700, Paul Burton wrote:
> Hi Alexandre, Quentin, all,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:16:53PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 03/09/2018 22:09:10-0700, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 15:45:22 +0200
> > > 
> > > > On 03/09/2018 15:34:15+0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > >> > I suggest patches 1 and 8 go through MIPS tree, 2 to 5 and 11 go through
> > > >> > net while the others (6, 7, 9 and 10) go through the generic PHY subsystem.
> > > >> 
> > > >> Hi Quentin
> > > >> 
> > > >> Are you expecting merge conflicts? If not, it might be simpler to gets
> > > >> ACKs from each maintainer, and then merge it though one tree.
> > > > 
> > > > There are some other DT changes for this cycle so those should probably
> > > > go through MIPS.
> > > 
> > > No objection for this going through the MIPS tree, and from me:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > What I meant was that 1/11 and 8/11 should go through MIPS because of
> > the potential conflicts. The other patches can go through net-next as
> > that will make more sense. Maybe Quentin can split the series in two,
> > one for MIPS and one for net if that makes it easier for you to apply.
> 
> I'd be happy to take the .dts changes through the MIPS tree, though
> looking at them won't patch 1 break bisection?
> 
> Since you remove the hsio reg entry it looks to me like
> mscc_ocelot_probe() will fail with -EINVAL (which comes from
> devm_ioremap_resource() with res=NULL) until patch 3.
> 

That's correct.

> I'd feel more comfortable merging this piecemeal if it doesn't result in
> us breaking bisection for however long it takes for both the trees
> involved to be merged.
> 

How do you want to proceed then?

Quentin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature