[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y1qbhik0.fsf@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2023 16:46:39 +0200
From: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com, nbd@....name, john@...ozen.org,
sean.wang@...iatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com,
sujuan.chen@...iatek.com, daniel@...rotopia.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 5/5] net: ethernet: mtk_wed: add reset/reset_complete callbacks
(now back from vacation)
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> writes:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2023 12:49:49 +0100 Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> > > These callbacks are implemented in the mt76 driver. I have not added these
>> > > patches to the series since mt76 patches usually go through Felix/Kalle's
>> > > trees (anyway I am fine to add them to the series if they can go into net-next
>> > > directly).
>> >
>> > Usually patches that use specific functionality are submitted together
>> > with API changes.
>>
>> I would say it is better mt76 patches go through Felix/Kalle's tree in order to avoid
>> conflicts.
>>
>> @Felix, Kalle: any opinions?
>
> FWIW as long as the implementation is in net-next before the merge
> window I'm fine either way. But it would be good to see the
> implementation, a co-posted RFC maybe?
FWIW I agree with Lorenzo, it would be good to get mt76 patches via
Felix's tree. Otherwise the conflicts might be annoying to fix.
--
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/
https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
Powered by blists - more mailing lists