[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210611114412.kgapahacqyz72il4@skbuf>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:44:12 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Wong Vee Khee <vee.khee.wong@...ux.intel.com>,
Ong Boon Leong <boon.leong.ong@...el.com>,
Michael Sit Wei Hong <michael.wei.hong.sit@...el.com>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 00/13] Port the SJA1105 DSA driver to XPCS
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 09:13:57PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>
> As requested when adding support for the NXP SJA1110, the SJA1105 driver
> could make use of the common XPCS driver, to eliminate some hardware
> specific code duplication.
>
> This series modifies the XPCS driver so that it can accommodate the XPCS
> instantiation from NXP switches, and the SJA1105 driver so it can expose
> what the XPCS driver expects.
>
> Tested on NXP SJA1105S and SJA1110A.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - fix module build (pcs-xpcs-nxp.c is not a different module so this
> means that we need to change the name of pcs-xpcs.ko to pcs_xpcs.ko).
> - delete sja1105_sgmii.h
> - just check for priv->pcs[port] instead of checking the PHY interface
> mode each time.
> - add the 2500base-x check in one place where it was missing (before
> mdio_device_create)
> - remove it from a few places where it is no longer necessary now that
> we check more generically for the presence of priv->xpcs[port]
>
> Vladimir Oltean (13):
> net: pcs: xpcs: rename mdio_xpcs_args to dw_xpcs
> net: stmmac: reverse Christmas tree notation in stmmac_xpcs_setup
> net: stmmac: reduce indentation when calling stmmac_xpcs_setup
> net: pcs: xpcs: move register bit descriptions to a header file
> net: pcs: xpcs: add support for sgmii with no inband AN
> net: pcs: xpcs: also ignore phy id if it's all ones
> net: pcs: xpcs: add support for NXP SJA1105
> net: pcs: xpcs: add support for NXP SJA1110
> net: pcs: xpcs: export xpcs_do_config and xpcs_link_up
> net: dsa: sja1105: migrate to xpcs for SGMII
> net: dsa: sja1105: register the PCS MDIO bus for SJA1110
> net: dsa: sja1105: SGMII and 2500base-x on the SJA1110 are 'special'
> net: dsa: sja1105: plug in support for 2500base-x
>
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/Kconfig | 1 +
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105.h | 9 +
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c | 186 +++----------
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_mdio.c | 255 +++++++++++++++++
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_sgmii.h | 53 ----
> drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_spi.c | 17 ++
> drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/common.h | 2 +-
> .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 10 +-
> .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_mdio.c | 6 +-
> drivers/net/pcs/Makefile | 4 +-
> drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs-nxp.c | 185 ++++++++++++
> drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.c | 263 +++++++++---------
> drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.h | 115 ++++++++
> include/linux/pcs/pcs-xpcs.h | 21 +-
> 15 files changed, 772 insertions(+), 357 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_sgmii.h
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs-nxp.c
> create mode 100644 drivers/net/pcs/pcs-xpcs.h
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
I see in patchwork this has "changes requested" but when I look through
the patches I see no feedback on them?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=498301&state=%2A&archive=both
The checkpatch warnings are along the lines of 'line length of 81/82
characters exceeds limit of 80', which I deliberately ignored, and 'you
didn't CC some random mailing list', which again was more or less
deliberate since I don't know if it would make any difference. Is that
the reason? There are no build failures with this version.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists