Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] MIPS: mobileye: eyeq5: add two Cadence GEM Ethernet controllers

From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
To: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>
Cc: "Théo Lebrun" <theo.lebrun@bootlin.com>,
	"Vladimir Kondratiev" <vladimir.kondratiev@mobileye.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Vinod Koul" <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@kernel.org>,
	"Michael Turquette" <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	"Stephen Boyd" <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	"Philipp Zabel" <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	"Benoît Monin" <benoit.monin@bootlin.com>,
	"Maxime Chevallier" <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
	"Tawfik Bayouk" <tawfik.bayouk@mobileye.com>,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] MIPS: mobileye: eyeq5: add two Cadence GEM Ethernet controllers
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2025 12:35:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aSmJH7A7FfQ7Pfdo@alpha.franken.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v7iu4eob.fsf@BLaptop.bootlin.com>

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 11:47:16AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 10:49:13AM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> >> Hello Thomas,
> >> 
> >> > Add both MACB/GEM instances found in the Mobileye EyeQ5 SoC.
> >> >
> >> > Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
> >> 
> >> Can you confirm that you will include this patch and the following one
> >> in your mips-next branch?
> >
> > I haven't planned doing this.
> >
> >> As you gave your Acked-by on it, I believe this will be the case, but I
> >> want to be sure they aren't forgotten.
> >
> > the  Acked-by is meant for including the patches into the tree, where the
> > rest of this series is going in.
> 
> However, according to the cover letter, there are no build dependencies
> between these patches and the driver-related patch. Furthermore, since
> it introduces a new compatible string, even if the driver part is not
> yet merged, we won’t experience any regression. Therefore, I believe it
> is safe to merge these two patches unless you have any concerns about
> them.

no concerns, but aren't they useless without the code changes ?

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]