netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] igc: Add support for LEDs on i225/i226

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]

Message-ID: <24b89ed0-2c2c-2aff-fa59-8ee8f9f22e9a@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:09:47 -0800
From: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Kurt Kanzenbach
	<kurt@...utronix.de>, <sasha.neftin@...el.com>, Naama Meir
	<naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] igc: Add support for LEDs on i225/i226



On 2/13/2024 10:49 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:41:37AM -0800, Tony Nguyen wrote:
>> From: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
>>
>> Add support for LEDs on i225/i226. The LEDs can be controlled via sysfs
>> from user space using the netdev trigger. The LEDs are named as
>> igc-<bus><device>-<led> to be easily identified.
>>
>> Offloading link speed and activity are supported. Other modes are simulated
>> in software by using on/off. Tested on Intel i225.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>> Tested-by: Naama Meir <naamax.meir@...ux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
> 
> Hi Tony
> 
> Did you change anything? I'm just wondering why you posted this,
> rather than just giving an Acked-by:

Hi Andrew,

No changes from me. I normally coalesce the IWL patches after our 
validation and send them on to netdev as a pull request. However, 
there's no other 1GbE patches in the pipeline so I'm sending the single 
patch. I believe this is the preference vs adding an Acked-by and having 
the netdev maintainers go back in history to pull this patch out.

Thanks,
Tony


>         Andrew