[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZvxxJWCTD4PgoMwb@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:01:09 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jiawen Wu <jiawenwu@...stnetic.com>,
Jose Abreu <joabreu@...opsys.com>,
Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Mengyuan Lou <mengyuanlou@...-swift.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/10] net: pcs: xpcs: move PCS reset to
.pcs_pre_config()
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 11:34:42PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Hi Russell
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 05:04:10PM GMT, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > Move the PCS reset to .pcs_pre_config() rather than at creation time,
> > which means we call the reset function with the interface that we're
> > actually going to be using to talk to the downstream device.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > Tested-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> # sja1105
> > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
>
> Continuing the RFC discussion. As I mentioned here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/mykeabksgikgk6otbub2i3ksfettbozuhqy3gt5vyezmemvttg@cpjn5bcfiwei/
> The PCS-reset procedure actually can be converted to being independent
> from the PHY-interface. Thus you won't need to move the PCS resetting
> to the pre_config() method, and get rid from the pointer to
> dw_xpcs_compat utilization each time the reset is required.
>
> So why not to merge in my patch to your series as a pre-requisite
> change and then this patch can be converted to just dropping the
> xpcs_find_compat() method call from the xpcs_init_iface() function?
> Alternatively the dropping can be just incorporated into my patch.
I'm wondering why we seem to be having a communication issue here.
I'm not sure which part of "keeping the functional changes to a
minimum for a cleanup series" you're not understanding. This is
one of the basics for kernel development... and given that you're
effectively maintaining stmmac, it's something you _should_ know.
So no, I'm going to outright refuse to merge your patch in to this
series, because as I see it, it would be wrong to do so. This is
a _cleanup_ series, not a functional change series, and what you're
proposing _changes_ the _way_ reset happens in this driver beyond
the minimum that is required for this cleanup. It's introducing a
completely _new_ way of writing to the devices registers to do
the reset that's different.
The more differences there are, the more chances there are of
regressions.
So, again, no..
--
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