[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241215225910.sbiav4umxiymafj2@skbuf>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:59:10 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mattias Forsblad <mattias.forsblad@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add RMU enable/disable ops
Hi Andrew,
On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 05:30:02PM +0000, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> Add internal APIs for enabling the Remote Management Unit, and
> extending the existing implementation to other families. Actually
> making use of the RMU is not included here, that will be part of a
> later big patch set, which without this preliminary patchset would be
> too big.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> ---
How big is the later patch set? Too big to accept even one more patch?
There is a risk that the RMU effort gets abandoned before it becomes
functional. And in that case, we will have a newly introduced rmu_enable()
operation which does nothing.
Could you splice the first patch of this set, providing rmu_enable() for
some switches but not all, with the set that integrates the RMU with DSA?
If the big set is accepted, a trivial follow-up will be necessary to
complete the support. If it is not accepted, we don't end up with merged
code that we don't need.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists