| Message ID | 20200219151259.14273-1-olteanv@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | DT bindings for Felix DSA switch on LS1028A | expand |
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 17:12:54 +0200 > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > This series officializes the device tree bindings for the embedded > Ethernet switch on NXP LS1028A (and for the reference design board). > The driver has been in the tree since v5.4-rc6. > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > If this happens, I would like the other maintainer to acknowledge this > fact and the patches themselves. Thanks. I'm fine with this going through the devicetree tree. Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> This series officializes the device tree bindings for the embedded > Ethernet switch on NXP LS1028A (and for the reference design board). > The driver has been in the tree since v5.4-rc6. > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > If this happens, I would like the other maintainer to acknowledge this > fact and the patches themselves. Thanks. > > Claudiu Manoil (2): > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: add node for Felix switch > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: enable switch PHYs on RDB > > Vladimir Oltean (3): > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: delete extraneous #interrupt-cells for ENETC > RCIE > net: dsa: felix: Use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL instead of GMII > dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: document the vsc9959 core For all patches except 5/5 (because it was tested on a custom board) and with patch from [1] applied: Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> -michael [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1239296/ > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt | 96 +++++++++++++++++++ > .../boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts | 51 ++++++++++ > .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 85 +++++++++++++++- > drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 3 +- > drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c | 3 +- > 5 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > This series officializes the device tree bindings for the embedded > Ethernet switch on NXP LS1028A (and for the reference design board). > The driver has been in the tree since v5.4-rc6. > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. Shawn > If this happens, I would like the other maintainer to acknowledge this > fact and the patches themselves. Thanks. > > Claudiu Manoil (2): > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: add node for Felix switch > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: enable switch PHYs on RDB > > Vladimir Oltean (3): > arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: delete extraneous #interrupt-cells for ENETC > RCIE > net: dsa: felix: Use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL instead of GMII > dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: document the vsc9959 core > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt | 96 +++++++++++++++++++ > .../boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts | 51 ++++++++++ > .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 85 +++++++++++++++- > drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 3 +- > drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c | 3 +- > 5 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt > > -- > 2.17.1 >
Hi Shawn, On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > > Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any > issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do > not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. > > Shawn > No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code. Thanks, -Vladimir
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > > > > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > > > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > > > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > > > > Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any > > issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do > > not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. > > > > Shawn > > > > No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree > bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those > changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm > introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the > actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I > don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code. The dt-bindings patch is supposed to go through subsystem tree together with driver changes by nature. That said, patch #1 and #2 are for David, and I will pick up the rest (DTS ones). Shawn
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:48, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > Hi Shawn, > > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > > > > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > > > > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > > > > > > Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any > > > issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do > > > not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. > > > > > > Shawn > > > > > > > No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree > > bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those > > changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm > > introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the > > actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I > > don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code. > > The dt-bindings patch is supposed to go through subsystem tree together > with driver changes by nature. That said, patch #1 and #2 are for > David, and I will pick up the rest (DTS ones). > > Shawn Ok, any further comments on the series or should I respin after your feedback regarding the commit message prefix and the status = "disabled" ordering? -Vladimir
On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:50, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 10:48, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 09:59:53AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > Hi Shawn, > > > > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 08:32, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 05:12:54PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> > > > > > > > > > > As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the > > > > > internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire > > > > > series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. > > > > > > > > Will applying the patches via different trees as normal cause any > > > > issue like build breakage or regression on either tree? Otherwise, I do > > > > not see the series needs to go in through a single tree. > > > > > > > > Shawn > > > > > > > > > > No, the point is that I've made some changes in the device tree > > > bindings validation in the driver, which make the driver without those > > > changes incompatible with the bindings themselves that I'm > > > introducing. So I would like the driver to be operational on the > > > actual commit that introduces the bindings, at least in your tree. I > > > don't expect merge conflicts to occur in that area of the code. > > > > The dt-bindings patch is supposed to go through subsystem tree together > > with driver changes by nature. That said, patch #1 and #2 are for > > David, and I will pick up the rest (DTS ones). > > > > Shawn > > Ok, any further comments on the series or should I respin after your > feedback regarding the commit message prefix and the status = > "disabled" ordering? > > -Vladimir By the way all your comments have been on v2 and I've sent v3 already. So this series is superseded. Regards, -Vladimir
From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> This series officializes the device tree bindings for the embedded Ethernet switch on NXP LS1028A (and for the reference design board). The driver has been in the tree since v5.4-rc6. As per feedback received in v1, I've changed the DT bindings for the internal ports from "gmii" to "internal". So I would like the entire series to be merged through a single tree, be it net-next or devicetree. If this happens, I would like the other maintainer to acknowledge this fact and the patches themselves. Thanks. Claudiu Manoil (2): arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: add node for Felix switch arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: enable switch PHYs on RDB Vladimir Oltean (3): arm64: dts: fsl: ls1028a: delete extraneous #interrupt-cells for ENETC RCIE net: dsa: felix: Use PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL instead of GMII dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: document the vsc9959 core .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt | 96 +++++++++++++++++++ .../boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a-rdb.dts | 51 ++++++++++ .../arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi | 85 +++++++++++++++- drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix.c | 3 +- drivers/net/dsa/ocelot/felix_vsc9959.c | 3 +- 5 files changed, 232 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ocelot.txt