[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231019172349.mwtxt5he222d6zrj@engraved>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:23:49 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@...com>
CC: <kuba@...nel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<pabeni@...hat.com>, <rogerq@...com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
<f.fainelli@...il.com>, <horms@...nel.org>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <srk@...com>,
Thejasvi Konduru <t-konduru@...com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <u-kumar1@...com>,
Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: davinci_mdio: Fix the
revision string for J721E
On 11:11-20231019, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote:
> Nishanth, Jakub,
>
> On 10/18/23 9:14 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> >
> > We then have the following steps potentially
> >
> > Drop the fixes and Maintain both SR2.0 and SR1.0 (add SR1.1) so that
> > we can merge the socinfo fixes without breaking bisectability.
>
> I will drop the fixes tag then and maintain SR1.0, SR1.1, SR2.0 for J721E
> and mention in the commit msg that this is a preparatory patch to fix the
> incorrect revision string generation. And in the next cycle, I will
> send out a patch removing the invalid revision IDs.
>
> Ideally I would prefer to do this for all the SoCs, but I would need some
> time to compile the list. So for now, I will send a v2 targeting only J721E.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
just do the full list in one shot. it is easier that way than having to
repeat this sync over and over again.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
Powered by blists - more mailing lists