[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1bab15e8-df1a-a4bc-fb3c-e0461f64197b@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 07:36:26 +1200
From: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org>,
ALeX Kazik <alex@...ik.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/2] net/8390: apne.c - add 100 Mbit support
to apne.c driver
Hi Geert,
On 20/06/21 11:47 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>
>>> Note that this patch has a hard dependency on "[PATCH v5 1/2] m68k:
>>> io_mm.h - add APNE 100 MBit support" in the series, so it must not
>>> be applied to the netdev tree yet.
>> Hmm - so we ought to protect the new code by
>>
>> #ifdef ARCH_HAVE_16BIT_PCMCIA
>>
>> and set that in the m68k machine Kconfig in the first patch?
>>
>> (It's almost, but not quite like a config option :-)
> No, we just manage dependencies, so either:
> 1. Patch 2 cannot go in until patch 1 is upstream,
> 2. One subsystem maintainer gives an Acked-by for one patch,so
> the other subsystem maintainer can apply both patches.
I haven't had any review from netdev yet - option 1 looks more feasible
(if you want to carry a patch that's useless without its follow-up). And
with the autoprobe failing (if I understood Alex right), I'll have to
think of something else or drop that patch again.
Is there anything (aside from linking to the e-mail thread) that I can
do to help netdev maintainers locate the first patch? The commit ID
won't remain the same once accepted upstream, am I right?
Cheers,
Michael
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists