[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56F3EE6A.5040304@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:40:58 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: phy: at803x: Request 'reset' GPIO only for AT8030
PHY
On 03/24/2016 01:10 PM, Sebastian Frias wrote:
>>> What I don't understand is why the link_change_notify() method ptr is
>>> populated for all 3 supported chips while only being needed on 8030...
>>
>> You are right.
>
> I made the patch but I'm unsure about it because it could conflict with
> yours.
> I mean, I think you submitted a patch to change the GPIO handling on the
> link_change_notify() function, right?
> Well, if we only register the callback for the AT8030, then there is no
> more need for the callback to check the PHY ID.
> However, if I change that, the whole block moves as I remove one
> indentation level (the one required by the PHY ID check).
>
> Any suggestions on how to create a patch that won't conflict? I probably
> need to use a tree that already has your patch applied.
My patch is already in Linus' tree, so should be merged back from net.git
into net-next.git
soon. I suggest that you wait until net-next is open again.
> Best regards,
>
> Sebastian
MBR, Sergei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists