From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] EEE support for mv88e6172 Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 01:46:00 -0700 Message-ID: <55015248.9090103@roeck-us.net> References: <1426025160-13992-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch> <20150311.165931.2141833376642325076.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , andrew@lunn.ch Return-path: Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net ([208.91.199.152]:46382 "EHLO bh-25.webhostbox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753337AbbCLIqD (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2015 04:46:03 -0400 Received: from mailnull by bh-25.webhostbox.net with sa-checked (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1YVykk-003Mrg-KV for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:46:02 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20150311.165931.2141833376642325076.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/11/2015 01:59 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Lunn > Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 23:05:56 +0100 > >> This patchset contains two cleanups and then adds EEE support >> to the mv88e6172, using the base provided by Guenter Roeck >> >> Tested on a WRT1900AC with mv88e6172 and DIR665 with mv88e6171. > > This series does not apply cleanly to net-next. > > I really want to discourage you posting patches against trees other > that net and net-next like this, without CLEARLY marking in the > Subject lines that this patch series is special and that I should > not try to review and apply it at all. > Andrew, I see two options: I can submit my entire series of HW bridging patches for mv88e6xxx, or I submit the introductory patches of that series (the ones refactoring the code to prepare for HW bridging) plus your (rebased) patches on top of it. What do you think ? Thanks, Guenter