On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 07:39:16 +0100 Markus Brunner <systemprogrammierung.brun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 14 December 2015 13:04:46 David Rivshin wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:44:19 +0100 > ... > > > Your patch works fine on my board, which uses MII and dual_emac > > > with a fixed_phy and a real one. > > > > Thanks for checking. The only dual_emac board I have available is > > the EVMSK, which has two real PHYs. I'm not sure of the usual > > etiquette (and Google was unhelpful), should I add a Tested-by on > > the next version? > > > Yes you can. Documentation/SubmittingPatches has some notes about it. Thanks, I didn't want to throw it on without permission. Although due to the non-trivial change I mention below, I figured that the previous testing wasn't totally valid anymore anyways, so I left it off the v2 emails. > > > I wanted to keep changes small and didn't spend too much thinking > > > about already broken devicetrees. Since my patch is quite new, I > > > > I'm honestly not sure it's an important consideration myself. Most > > patches I've seen in this area for this or other drivers do not take > > such behavior into account (e.g. the phy-handle parsing that went in > > to cpsw in 4.3). > > I would generally feel more comfortable with such a behavior tweak > > (minor as it is) before 4.4 is released, to avoid ping-ponging the > > behavior. But given how far along the cycle is, I'm not sure about > > the chances of that. > > Well I don't think compatibility for flawed DTs is such a high > priority, especially if it is that unlikely that there are some > affected. Keep the focus on the other _real_ problems you have > encountered and fix those like you see fit. Since there's been no indication from anyone that being nice to such broken DTs is desired, I decided to drop that aspect of the patch and leave the current 4.4-rc1..5 behavior. This also made it much more reasonable to chop up the patch into smaller pieces, which I think will be easier to review. > > > don't see any problems with subtle changes like that. However you > > > should update the documentation as well. > > > > Your patch already updated .../bindings/net/cpsw.txt, which this > > patch left alone. Are you referring to some other documentation, > > or do you think I should update the binding documentation to state > > that phy_id takes precedence over fixed-link? I figured that such > > devicetrees were still officially malformed, so I thought the > > existing text was appropriate. > > "Either the properties phy_id and phy-mode, or the sub-node > fixed-link can be specified" One flaw of my patch was to ignore the > phy-mode for a fixed link. Do not mention the precedence of the > phy_id, because it is an undefined behavior. Your patch should change > it to: "Either the property phy_id, or the sub-node fixed-link can be > specified" Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason my brain skipped over the "and phy-mode" part. Fixed in v2. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
