[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+h21ho9bJsaq8e-gRhRpM+kXARNJ6tyL10vKVf2+7YOtaJGXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:39:44 +0200
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: mkl@...gutronix.de, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, david@...tonic.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] net: dsa: sja1105: print info about probet chip
only after every thing was done.
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 12:32, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On 25.11.19 11:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 12:03, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently we will get "Probed switch chip" notification multiple times
> >> if first probe filed by some reason. To avoid this confusing notifications move
> >> dev_info to the end of probe.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
> >> ---
> >
> > Also there are some typos which should be corrected:
> > probet -> probed
> > every thing -> everything
> > filed -> failed
> >
> > "failed for some reason" -> "was deferred"
>
> Ok, thx.
>
> should i resend both patches separately or only this one with spell fixes?
>
I don't know if David/Jakub like applying partial series (just 2/2). I
would send a v2 to each patch specifying the tree clearly.
Also I think I would just move the "Probed...." message somewhere at
the beginning of sja1105_setup, where no probe deferral can happen.
>
> Kind regards,
> Oleksij Rempel
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Thanks,
-Vladimir
Powered by blists - more mailing lists