[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ea8cc94c-b212-4ae2-8c5b-7697e9b358aa@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:08:53 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>, Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [net-next v4 5/5] ARM: mxs_defconfig: Enable CONFIG_FEC_MTIP_L2SW
to support MTIP L2 switch
On 10/04/2025 09:01, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
>> Hi Lukasz,
>>
>> Am 07.04.25 um 16:51 schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
>>> This patch enables support for More Than IP switch available on some
>>> imx28[7] devices.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
>> thanks adding the driver to mxs_defconfig. Unfortunately it's not
>> possible for reviewers to identify the relevant changes,
>
> Could you be more specific here?
> As fair as I see - there is only 14 LOCs changed for review.
Really, the comment was very specific. You make multiple independent,
looking irrelevant changes to the file.
>
> Please also be aware that MTIP L2 switch driver has some dependencies -
> on e.g. SWITCHDEV and BRIDGE, which had to be enabled to allow the
> former one to be active.
>
>> also the
>> commit messages doesn't provide further information.
>>
>
> What kind of extra information shall I provide? IMHO the patch is
> self-explaining.
For example explain why do you think GPIO_SYSFS should be dropped.
>
>> In general there are two approaches to solves this:
>> 1) prepend an additional patch which synchronizes mxs_defconfig with
>> current mainline
>> 2) manually create the relevant changes against mxs_defconfig
>>
>> The decision about the approaches is up to the maintainer.
>
> I took the linux-next's (or net-next) mxs defconfig (cp it to be
> .config)
>
> Then run CROSS_COMPILE= ... make ARCH=arm menuconfig
> Enabled all the relevant Kconfig options and run
>
> CROSS_COMPILE= ... make ARCH=arm savedefconfig
> and copy defconfig to mxs_defconfig.
> Then I used git to prepare the patch.
>
> Isn't the above procedure correct?
No, it is not correct. Do not make any changes in the "Enabled all the
relevant Kconfig options and run" step and check the result. Do you see
difference in result file? If yes, then why such difference should be
part of this commit?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists