From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF1C5C25B4E for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:08:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NysZd2MP8z3fXX for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:08:41 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=eV82duGb; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=139.178.84.217; helo=dfw.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=vkoul@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=eV82duGb; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NysXN71L2z3fQp for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:06:44 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 725C161E48; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:06:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04627C4339C; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:06:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1674202000; bh=UiIWl1B5LiUi4QWU9j9MLDN5A3wG8pwgCFhO+/VTz5k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eV82duGb2iVbYPyf0AeoQN8zV/TSECpo1KwtWHWHyFwc/G0u7ds3bXr4Gf1iaXQeW Pwwm8fnvJGoBrj/QdnGlrIfCf0QHXJCoN8pdlM5u0+kC5R4gfMB1+gvH+Uf7e5VcxI PpgA+S2NMZJoKa1IlJ7qHGY9iE/UO87bWRtgDysT3ajO7hI47onHI+5t5tL3a77ewS utwllDInmkt7v2ObVNXNxYSnf2Rfo8FVFepensvD6wTfqd0CCQbKASP7YMWYcUNvDM Anh4nz2sI09zSdiT2RBNZKM28fWrmL/ovniHJ40t+r4+UM9To1RXjxRy7uI8IVUUiK veIQLzwAP4nmA== Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:36:36 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Sean Anderson Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 00/10] phy: Add support for Lynx 10G SerDes Message-ID: References: <20221230000139.2846763-1-sean.anderson@seco.com> <0024c780-ff9c-a9d3-8773-28e6b21bcc43@seco.com> <17e428ae-7789-a1ab-3ccd-90b3b9a088f1@seco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17e428ae-7789-a1ab-3ccd-90b3b9a088f1@seco.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Madalin Bucur , Stephen Boyd , Shawn Guo , Michael Turquette , Jonathan Corbet , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Li Yang , Rob Herring , Camelia Alexandra Groza , Bagas Sanjaya , Ioana Ciornei , linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 19-01-23, 11:22, Sean Anderson wrote: > On 1/18/23 11:54, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 17-01-23, 11:46, Sean Anderson wrote: > >> > >> I noticed that this series is marked "changes requested" on patchwork. > >> However, I have received only automated feedback. I have done my best > >> effort to address feedback I have received on prior revisions. I would > >> appreciate getting another round of review before resending this series. > > > > Looking at the series, looks like kernel-bot sent some warnings on the > > series so I was expecting an updated series for review > > > > Generally, multiple reviewers will comment on a patch, even if another > reviewer finds something which needs to be changed. This is a one-line > fix, so I would appreciate getting more substantial feedback before > respinning. Every time I send a new series I have to rebase and test on > hardware. It's work that I would rather do when there is something to be > gained. I review to apply, if I can apply, I would typically skip this -- ~Vinod