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

[Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)]

Hi Oltean,

Le 28/07/2026 à 15:47, Vladimir Oltean a écrit :
> 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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Flinux-phy%2Fpatch%2F20260721231603.67865-4-vladimir.oltean%40nxp.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793851204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AUY%2BIZEiFp3aLAO4HlHQCrJ9ZnCyFqzshPEGq6CpfmU%3D&reserved=0
> > "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://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fchleroy%2Flinux.git%2F%3Fh%3Dsoc_fsl&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793877128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xjpwRCMIncWpW89zKzhil20%2BcUhnG4LPaFNbxw1pue8%3D&reserved=0

Hum ... Seems like I overlooked your message as it was flagged phy-next 
and I was on summer vacation on last two weeks.

I'm fine with taking them via soc_fsl tree. I won't take them today 
because I'm already pushing a large series from Paul Louvel but I'd push 
them by tomorrow or thurday.

Please raise hand if nothing happened by friday.

Christophe