linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allwinner: h6: orangepi-one-plus: Add Ethernet support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 18:28:16 +0530
From:   Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com>
Cc:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Michael Trimarchi <michael@...rulasolutions.com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-amarula <linux-amarula@...rulasolutions.com>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: allwinner: h6: orangepi-one-plus: Add Ethernet support

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 12:36 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 03:03:15PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:16 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 05:29:28PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > Add Ethernet support for orangepi-one-plus board,
> > > >
> > > > - Ethernet port connected via RTL8211E PHY
> > > > - PHY suppiled with
> > > >   GMAC-2V5, fixed regulator with GMAC_EN pin via PD6
> > > >   GMAC-3V, which is supplied by VCC3V3-MAC via aldo2
> > > > - RGMII-RESET pin connected via PD14
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@...rulasolutions.com>
> > >
> > > Your commit log should be improved. We can get those informations from
> > > the patch itself...
> >
> > Thought it was a clear commit log :)  will update anyway.
>
> Well, yes and no. The commit log is clear indeed, but it doesn't
> provide what it's supposed to provide.
>
> You shouldn't put *what* is being done by the patch. That's pretty
> easy to figure out by reading the patch itself. You have to explain
> why and how you did it, which is lacking in that case.

Make sense, will rework.