Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 02/14] net: dsa: mt7530: fix phylink for port 5 and fix port 5 modes

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 11.04.2023 18:00, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 04:46:14PM +0300, arinc9.unal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > There're two code paths for setting up port 5:
> >
> > mt7530_setup()
> > -> mt7530_setup_port5()
> >
> > mt753x_phylink_mac_config()
> > -> mt753x_mac_config()
> >     -> mt7530_mac_config()
> >        -> mt7530_setup_port5()
> >
> > The first code path is supposed to run when PHY muxing is being used. In
> > this case, port 5 is somewhat of a hidden port. It won't be defined on the
> > devicetree so phylink can't be used to manage the port.
> >
> > The second code path used to call mt7530_setup_port5() directly under case
> > 5 on mt7530_phylink_mac_config() before it was moved to mt7530_mac_config()
> > with 88bdef8be9f6 ("net: dsa: mt7530: Extend device data ready for adding a
> > new hardware"). mt7530_setup_port5() will never run through this code path
> > because the current code on mt7530_setup() bypasses phylink for all cases
> > of port 5.
> >
> > Fix this by leaving it to phylink if port 5 is used as a CPU, DSA, or user
> > port. For the cases of PHY muxing or the port being disabled, call
> > mt7530_setup_port5() directly from mt7530_setup() without involving
> > phylink.
> >
> > Move setting the interface and P5_DISABLED mode to a more specific
> > location. They're supposed to be overwritten if PHY muxing is detected.
> >
> > Add comments which explain the process.
> >
> > Tested-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> We have a natural language processing engine (AUTOSEL) which
> automatically picks up as candidates for "stable" those patches which
> weren't explicitly submitted through the proper process for that (and
> they contain words like "fix", "bug", "crash", "leak" etc).
>
> Your chosen wording, both in the commit title and message, would most
> likely trigger that bot, and then you'd have to explain why you chose
> this language and not something else more descriptive of your change.
> It would be nice if you could rewrite the commit messages for your
> entire series to be a bit more succint as to what is the purpose of the
> change you are making, and don't use the word "fix" when there is no
> problem to be observed.

Will do, thanks.

Arınç