linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: ti: gmii-sel: Add support for CPSW9G GMII SEL in J784S4

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

Message-ID: <10ad789e-3dcc-0c74-5426-87f4a53d6fd0@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 10:53:19 +0300
From:   Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>
To:     Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
Cc:     vkoul@...nel.org, kishon@...nel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        srk@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: ti: gmii-sel: Add support for CPSW9G GMII SEL in
 J784S4



On 31/03/2023 10:49, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> Hello Roger,
> 
> On 31/03/23 13:15, Roger Quadros wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 31/03/2023 09:25, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>> Each of the CPSW9G ports in TI's J784S4 SoC support modes such as QSGMII.
>>>
>>> Add a new compatible for it and allow the usage of "ti,qsgmii-main-ports"
>>> property for J784S4.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.c b/drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.c
>>> index c87118cb2af9..fba5c0c0771c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/phy/ti/phy-gmii-sel.c
>>> @@ -235,6 +235,15 @@ struct phy_gmii_sel_soc_data phy_gmii_sel_cpsw9g_soc_j721e = {
>>>  	.num_qsgmii_main_ports = 2,
>>>  };
>>>  
>>> +static const
>>> +struct phy_gmii_sel_soc_data phy_gmii_sel_cpsw9g_soc_j784s4 = {
>>
>> Please make it into one line
> 
> I was simply following the convention used for other SoC data structs in the
> same file. Please let me know why this has to be an exception and I will post
> the v2 series with the change accordingly.

Not that much of a deal. ;)

Reviewed-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>