Re: [PATCH v4 phy-next 0/9] RCW override for 10G Lynx dynamic protocol reconfiguration

["Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org>]

Hi Oltean,

Le 28/07/2026 à 15:47, Vladimir Oltean a écrit :
> Hi Christophe,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:01:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:15:54AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> Ioana Ciornei (4):
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: use a macro to encode the DCFG CCSR space
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: add a global structure to hold state
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: add a central fsl_guts_read() function
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: make it easier to determine on which SoC we are
>>>      running
>>>
>>> Vladimir Oltean (5):
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: perform fsl_guts_init() error teardown in reverse
>>>      order of setup
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: make fsl_soc_data available after fsl_guts_init()
>>>    dt-bindings: fsl: layerscape-dcfg: define DCFG_DCSR region
>>>    soc: fsl: guts: implement the RCW override procedure
>>>    phy: lynx-10g: use RCW override procedure for dynamic protocol change
>>
>> Even though I intended these changes for linux-phy (they are also
>> build-tested there), I'm fine either with these changes taken through
>> Vinod's tree with Christophe's ACK for patches 1-8, or through
>> Christophe's tree with Vinod's ACK for patch 9, really.
>>
>> I see on Patchwork there's a minor issue in the commit message of patch 3/9:
>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Flinux-phy%2Fpatch%2F20260721231603.67865-4-vladimir.oltean%40nxp.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793851204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AUY%2BIZEiFp3aLAO4HlHQCrJ9ZnCyFqzshPEGq6CpfmU%3D&reserved=0
>> "WARNING: 'struture' may be misspelled - perhaps 'structure'?"
>>
>> Could this be fixed up while applying, if there is no other feedback?
> 
> Do you have feedback/a preference for how these patches should be handled?
> 
> I see Vinod acked patch 9, so I guess that means his preference would be
> for you to pick up the entire series (which is indivisible).
> 
> I checked that the patches apply to your soc_fsl branch:
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fchleroy%2Flinux.git%2F%3Fh%3Dsoc_fsl&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793877128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xjpwRCMIncWpW89zKzhil20%2BcUhnG4LPaFNbxw1pue8%3D&reserved=0
> 

Hum ... Seems like I overlooked your message as it was flagged phy-next 
and I was on summer vacation on last two weeks.

I'm fine with taking them via soc_fsl tree. I won't take them today 
because I'm already pushing a large series from Paul Louvel but I'd push 
them by tomorrow or thurday.

Please raise hand if nothing happened by friday.

Christophe