From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: dsa: lan9303: Simplify
 lan9303_xxx_packet_processing() usage
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:47:00 +0200
Message-ID: <20170731144700.GG24562@lunn.ch>
References: <20170731113355.4284-1-privat@egil-hjelmeland.no>
 <20170731113355.4284-3-privat@egil-hjelmeland.no>
 <20170731134640.GD24562@lunn.ch>
 <83b3fb27-97dd-a9ea-e0db-017d616f93fe@egil-hjelmeland.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@pengutronix.de
To: Egil Hjelmeland <privat@egil-hjelmeland.no>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83b3fb27-97dd-a9ea-e0db-017d616f93fe@egil-hjelmeland.no>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

> >Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> >
> >     Andrew
> >
> 
> Hi Andrew
> 
> This time I took the extra effort to split my  original patch...
> 
> Your lan9303_write_switch_port suggestion (in previous reply) is fine.
> And I can improve the coverletter.
> 
> So I will do a v2 of the patch. But what is your advice:
> Should I squash the patch?

I already gave my Reviewed-by:, meaning i don't really care. Merged or
squashed is a minor point in this case.

	 Andrew