[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5638E06E.8010405@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:27:26 +0100
From: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/6] net: dsa: mv88e6060: cleanup and fix
setup
On 11/02/2015 04:41 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Nice cleanup. I'll just be a bit picky here, so you may not consider my
> comment for this patchset, but maybe for the future ones. Unless I'm
> mistaken, there is no reason to group all these patches together.
>
> The first 4 patches are independent fixes, and thus could have been sent
> separately to netdev -net.
>
> Then the last 2 ones could have been squashed together, because I don't
> see a real value to seperate them since you duplicate some defines, e.g.
> REG_PORT. And this patch would be a candidate for netdev -net-next.
>
> Thanks,
> -v
>
Hi Vivien,
I understand your point of view, and it really makes sense.
But the first patch has a dependency on the DSA cleanup patchset, so
if I follow your point, I should submit 3 patchsets with a single
patchset for the poll_link complete removal. But the two other
patchsets will have a strong dependency on the poll_link removal...
This question is on which version of mv88e6060 and dsa should I base
the cleanup patchset ? before of after the poll_link removal ?
For the fixes, they are not critical at all, net-next would be enough.
Any advice is welcome at this point....
Thanks !
Neil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists