[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E71B45.1010805@caviumnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:12:53 -0700
From: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
<rric@...nel.org>, <sgoutham@...ium.com>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<pawel.moll@....com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <rchintakuntla@...ium.com>,
<david.daney@...ium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] net/phy: Improvements to Cavium Thunder MDIO code.
On 03/14/2016 12:27 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:53:08 -0800
>
>> Changes from v1:
>>
>> - In 1/3 Add back check for non-OF objects in bgx_init_of_phy(). It
>> is probably not necessary, but better safe than sorry...
>>
>> The firmware on many Cavium Thunder systems configures the MDIO bus
>> hardware to be probed as a PCI device. In order to use the MDIO bus
>> drivers in this configuration, we must add PCI probing to the driver.
>>
>> There are two parts to this set of three patches:
>>
>> 1) Cleanup the PHY probing code in thunder_bgx.c to handle the case
>> where there is no PHY attached to a port, as well as being more
>> robust in the face of driver loading order by use of
>> -EPROBE_DEFER.
>>
>> 2) Split mdio-octeon.c into two drivers, one with platform probing,
>> and the other with PCI probing. Common code is shared between the
>> two.
>>
>> Tested on several different Thunder and OCTEON systems, also compile
>> tested on x86_64.
>
> Series applied, thanks David.
Thanks, but ... I was going to send another revision.
See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/11/721
There were a couple of items I wanted to fix.
1) Missing MODULE_LICENSE() in new common code source file results in
taint warnings.
2) Fix device reference counts for -EPROBE_DEFER case.
At this point, I think the best path forward is for me to rebase against
net-next and send you a small fixup set to what was merged.
What do you think?
David Daney
Powered by blists - more mailing lists