netdev - Re: [net PATCH 1/2] drivers: net: phy: at803x: fix resume for QCA8327 phy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 9 Oct 2021 02:16:31 +0200
From:   Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 1/2] drivers: net: phy: at803x: fix resume for
 QCA8327 phy

On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 05:13:55PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Oct 2021 01:50:21 +0200 Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:47:50PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > On Sat,  9 Oct 2021 01:34:25 +0200 Ansuel Smith wrote:  
> > > > From Documentation phy resume triggers phy reset and restart
> > > > auto-negotiation. Add a dedicated function to wait reset to finish as
> > > > it was notice a regression where port sometime are not reliable after a
> > > > suspend/resume session. The reset wait logic is copied from phy_poll_reset.
> > > > Add dedicated suspend function to use genphy_suspend only with QCA8337
> > > > phy and set only additional debug settings for QCA8327. With more test
> > > > it was reported that QCA8327 doesn't proprely support this mode and
> > > > using this cause the unreliability of the switch ports, especially the
> > > > malfunction of the port0.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 15b9df4ece17 ("net: phy: at803x: add resume/suspend function to qca83xx phy")  
> > > 
> > > Hm, there's some confusion here. This commit does not exist in net,
> > > and neither does the one from patch 2.
> > > 
> > > We should be fine with these going into net-next, right Andrew?  
> > 
> > Took the hash from linux-next. Think this is the reason they are not in
> > net?
> 
> Yup, just to be sure you understand the process please take a look at
> 
>  - How do the changes posted to netdev make their way into Linux?
>  - How often do changes from these trees make it to the mainline Linus
>    tree?
> 
> here:
> 
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/netdev-FAQ.html#how-do-the-changes-posted-to-netdev-make-their-way-into-linux
> 
> But yeah, I think we can go back to posting all 15 patches as one
> series. Let's see if Andrew has any feedback on the v2.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion!

It's ok. We got all confused with the Fixes tag. Pushing stuff too
quickly... I should have notice they were not present in net and
reporting that. Sorry for the mess.

-- 
	Ansuel