Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] net: lan966x: add port module support

[Sean Anderson]

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@xxxxxxxx/
>
> Patchwork says its deferrred:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20211022160959.3350916-1-sean.anderson@xxxxxxxx/
>
> 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