Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 6.10 03/27] r8169: remove detection of chip version 11 (early RTL8168b)

Sasha Levin
2024-08-11T21:16:39Z

On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 04:32:07PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>On 10.08.2024 11:12, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 10:45:15AM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> On 28.07.2024 02:52, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> [ Upstream commit 982300c115d229565d7af8e8b38aa1ee7bb1f5bd ]
>>>>
>>>> This early RTL8168b version was the first PCIe chip version, and it's
>>>> quite quirky. Last sign of life is from more than 15 yrs ago.
>>>> Let's remove detection of this chip version, we'll see whether anybody
>>>> complains. If not, support for this chip version can be removed a few
>>>> kernel versions later.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/875cdcf4-843c-420a-ad5d-417447b68572@gmail.com
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c | 4 +++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
>>>> index 7b9e04884575e..d2d46fe17631a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169_main.c
>>>> @@ -2274,7 +2274,9 @@ static enum mac_version rtl8169_get_mac_version(u16 xid, bool gmii)
>>>>
>>>>          /* 8168B family. */
>>>>          { 0x7c8, 0x380,    RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_17 },
>>>> -        { 0x7c8, 0x300,    RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_11 },
>>>> +        /* This one is very old and rare, let's see if anybody complains.
>>>> +         * { 0x7c8, 0x300,    RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_11 },
>>>> +         */
>>>>
>>>>          /* 8101 family. */
>>>>          { 0x7c8, 0x448,    RTL_GIGA_MAC_VER_39 },
>>>
>>> It may be the case that there are still few users out there with this ancient hw.
>>> We will know better once 6.11 is out for a few month. In this case we would have to
>>> revert this change.
>>> I don't think it's a change which should go to stable.
>>
>> Sure, I'll drop it.
>>
>Just saw that this patch has been added to stable again an hour ago.
>Technical issue?

Indeed, I ended up dropping from the wrong local branch yesterday,
sorry!

--
Thanks,
Sasha