[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230126010214.GO20713@T480>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:02:16 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>, wei.fang@....com,
shenwei.wang@....com, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, festevam@...il.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, richardcochran@...il.com,
linux-imx@....com, kernel@...gutronix.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] Add eqos and fec support for imx93
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 09:27:56AM +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2023-01-13 at 11:33 +0800, Clark Wang wrote:
> > This patchset add imx93 support for dwmac-imx glue driver.
> > There are some changes of GPR implement.
> > And add fec and eqos nodes for imx93 dts.
> >
> > Clark Wang (7):
> > net: stmmac: add imx93 platform support
> > dt-bindings: add mx93 description
> > dt-bindings: net: fec: add mx93 description
> > arm64: dts: imx93: add eqos support
> > arm64: dts: imx93: add FEC support
> > arm64: dts: imx93-11x11-evk: enable eqos
> > arm64: dts: imx93-11x11-evk: enable fec function
> >
> > .../devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml | 1 +
> > .../bindings/net/nxp,dwmac-imx.yaml | 4 +-
> > .../boot/dts/freescale/imx93-11x11-evk.dts | 78 +++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx93.dtsi | 48 ++++++++++++
> > .../net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-imx.c | 55 +++++++++++--
> > 5 files changed, 180 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> It's not clear to me if the whole series should go via netdev. I
> think/fear such option could cause later conflicts for Linus. Does it
> make sense to split this in 2 chunks, and have only the first 3 patches
> merged via netdev?
I share the same concern here.
David,
Could you *not* apply DTS patches in the future? People often include
driver changes and corresponding DTS ones in a single series to ease
cross reviewing and testing. If picking selected patches from a series
could a problem for your applying robot, we should probably start asking
people to split change-sets.
Shawn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists