[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUjU1KEg1PTcDHJKJNXPeGsacHNjiCBy_obA7MNAWJ2QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 09:49:30 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Philippe Schenker <philippe.schenker@...adex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/6] net: add generic selftest support
Hi Oleksij,
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 9:26 AM Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 08:45:05AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:13 PM Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > > Port some parts of the stmmac selftest and reuse it as basic generic selftest
> > > library. This patch was tested with following combinations:
> > > - iMX6DL FEC -> AT8035
> > > - iMX6DL FEC -> SJA1105Q switch -> KSZ8081
> > > - iMX6DL FEC -> SJA1105Q switch -> KSZ9031
> > > - AR9331 ag71xx -> AR9331 PHY
> > > - AR9331 ag71xx -> AR9331 switch -> AR9331 PHY
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 3e1e58d64c3d0a67 ("net: add
> > generic selftest support") upstream.
> >
> > > --- a/net/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/net/Kconfig
> > > @@ -429,6 +429,10 @@ config GRO_CELLS
> > > config SOCK_VALIDATE_XMIT
> > > bool
> > >
> > > +config NET_SELFTESTS
> > > + def_tristate PHYLIB
> >
> > Why does this default to enabled if PHYLIB=y?
> > Usually we allow the user to make selftests modular, independent of the
> > feature under test, but I may misunderstand the purpose of this test.
> >
> > Thanks for your clarification!
>
> There is nothing against making optional. Should I do it?
Yes please. Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists