[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXEEBe4Se1jy07B=5gnfGxty=cPM_5fJ2+5A-dZ6BX3uHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:23:31 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
"open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Willy Liu <willy.liu@...ltek.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.kojima@...aro.org>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] netsec: ignore 'phy-mode' device property on ACPI systems
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 14:49, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
>
> > I hope Andrew is fine with the current changes
>
> Yes, i'm O.K. with it.
Thanks
> Making phy-mode optional would just make the
> driver more uniform with others.
>
Making phy-mode optional is fine with me, but I think it would belong
in a separate patch in any case. But I'd still prefer having the
possibility to spot bogus phy-mode values rather than ignoring them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists