From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: armada388-clearfog: number LAN ports properly Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:42:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20160727104205.GW1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20160708152616.GF8426@lunn.ch> <87vazro02y.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20160727102120.GV1041@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> <87r3afnzq6.fsf@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r3afnzq6.fsf-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > Hi Russell King, > > On mer., juil. 27 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:19:01PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On ven., juil. 08 2016, Andrew Lunn wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:58:39PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > >> >> Currently, the ports as seen from the rear number as: > >> >> > >> >> eth0 sfp lan5 lan4 lan3 lan2 lan1 lan6 > >> >> > >> >> which is illogical - this came about because the rev 2.0 boards have the > >> >> LEDs on the front for the DSA switch (lan5-1) reversed. Rev 2.1 boards > >> >> fixed the LED issue, and the Clearfog case numbers the lan ports > >> >> increasing from left to right. > >> >> > >> >> Maintaining this illogical numbering causes confusion, with reports that > >> >> "my link isn't coming up" and "my connection negotiates 10base-Half" > >> >> both of which are due to people thinking that the port next to the SFP > >> >> is lan1. > >> >> > >> >> Fix this by renumbering the ports to match people's expectations. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Russell King > >> > > >> > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn > >> > >> I missed this patch, but I now applied it on mvebu/dt-4.9 > > > > It would be much better to get it into 4.8-rc so that we don't spread > > the port renumbering over a large range of kernels, as well as forcing > > vendors to carry patches like this to fix problems. > > I can move it to the mvebu/fixes branch, it is not too late. Also what > about to apply it on the stable kernel? That'd probably be best. As far as stable goes, I can't convince myself that it is really stable kernel material. I'm not aware what happened to the eth* renumber patch, was that applied to stable trees? My view would be that the lan* renumbering should be applied to the same trees which include the eth* renumbering and no further, iff the eth* renumber was even backported. Talking to Jon Nettleton @ SR, he's in favour of it being applied to stable kernels. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html