[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AM5PR0402MB2691AA6167F9C9A68C058797EC730@AM5PR0402MB2691.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:53:39 +0000
From: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] fsl/fman: remove of_node
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 7:44 AM
> To: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>
> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; andrew@...n.ch; f.fainelli@...il.com; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsl/fman: remove of_node
>
> From: Madalin-cristian Bucur <madalin.bucur@....com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 08:49:31 +0000
>
> > My patch removes the of_node that was set to a device that was not an
> > of_device, preventing duplicated probing of both the real of_device
> > and the "fake" one created through this assignment.
> >
> > I understand that the DSA issue that triggered the initial change
> > was related to DSA finding the network devices using
> > of_find_net_device_by_node(), something that will not work for the
> > DPAA case where the netdevice does not have an of_node. I do not know
> > enough about DSA to come up with a solution for this problem now.
> > Andrew, Florian, can you please comment on this?
>
> It sounds like you're knowingly breaking DSA.
It never worked, even with the change I'm reverting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists