[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMOaZdDVkN4bq66C@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:37:25 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@...sares.net>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: fix older DSA drivers using phylink -
manual merge
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 12:23:25PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> On 26/07/2023 16:45, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Older DSA drivers that do not provide an dsa_ops adjust_link method end
> > up using phylink. Unfortunately, a recent phylink change that requires
> > its supported_interfaces bitmap to be filled breaks these drivers
> > because the bitmap remains empty.
> >
> > Rather than fixing each driver individually, fix it in the core code so
> > we have a sensible set of defaults.
> >
> > Reported-by: Sergei Antonov <saproj@...il.com>
> > Fixes: de5c9bf40c45 ("net: phylink: require supported_interfaces to be filled")
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>
> FYI, we got a small conflict when merging 'net' in 'net-next' in the
> MPTCP tree due to this patch applied in 'net':
>
> 9945c1fb03a3 ("net: dsa: fix older DSA drivers using phylink")
>
> and this one from 'net-next':
>
> a88dd7538461 ("net: dsa: remove legacy_pre_march2020 detection")
It was unavoidable.
> ----- Generic Message -----
> The best is to avoid conflicts between 'net' and 'net-next' trees but if
> they cannot be avoided when preparing patches, a note about how to fix
> them is much appreciated.
Given that this is a trivial context-based conflict, it wasn't worth it.
If it was a conflict that actually involved two changes touching the
same lines of code, then yes, that would be sensible.
Note that I don't get these messages from the netdev maintainers when
they update net-next (as they did last night.)
>
> - if (ds->ops->phylink_get_caps)
> - /* Presence of phylink_mac_link_state or phylink_mac_an_restart is
> - * an indicator of a legacy phylink driver.
> - */
> - if (ds->ops->phylink_mac_link_state ||
> - ds->ops->phylink_mac_an_restart)
> - dp->pl_config.legacy_pre_march2020 = true;
> -
> + if (ds->ops->phylink_get_caps) {
> ds->ops->phylink_get_caps(ds, dp->index, &dp->pl_config);
> + } else {
> + /* For legacy drivers */
> + __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL,
> + dp->pl_config.supported_interfaces);
> + __set_bit(PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_GMII,
> + dp->pl_config.supported_interfaces);
> + }
Of course, being a purely context-based conflict, that is correct.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists