[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201124102022.1a6e6085@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:20:22 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@...com>
Cc: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>, kuba@...nel.org,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
has <has@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: stmmac: add flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a
On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback
> > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and
> > > > 5.00a [2].
> > > >
> > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a.
> > > >
> > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014
> > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo@...com>
> > >
> > > Applied to net-next.
> >
> > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location.
> > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line:
> >
> > @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = {
> >
> > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add
> > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead:
> >
> > @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = {
> >
> > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's
> > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the
> > change for the correct variant.
>
> Agree,
> the patch get applied to the wrong place!
:-o
This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it
happen working on "current" branches.
Sorry about that!
Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if
you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists