[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <749884b8-9588-4666-8862-e7895cda3d39@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:40:30 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Herve Codina <herve.codina@...tlin.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Marek Behún <kabel@...nel.org>,
Köry Maincent <kory.maincent@...tlin.com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] Allow controlling PHY loopback and isolate
modes
> With that being said, is it OK if I split the loopback part out of that
> series ? From the comments, it looks like a complex-enough topic to be
> covered on its own, and if we consider the loopback as a NIC feature,
> then it doesn't really fit into the current work anymore.
>
> I am however happy to continue discussing that topic. Using loopback
> has proven to be most helpful several times for me when bringing-up
> devices.
I agree Loopback is a useful facility, and is something we should
support. But i see it as being a topic of its own. So please do split
it out of this patchset.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists