From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antoine Tenart Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: sfp: small improvements Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:24:30 +0200 Message-ID: <20180522092430.GC2871@kwain> References: <20180517082907.14420-1-antoine.tenart@bootlin.com> <20180521.115115.102542572797022222.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: antoine.tenart@bootlin.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com, maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com, gregory.clement@bootlin.com, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, nadavh@marvell.com, stefanc@marvell.com, ymarkman@marvell.com, mw@semihalf.com To: David Miller Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180521.115115.102542572797022222.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi David, On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 11:51:15AM -0400, David Miller wrote: > From: Antoine Tenart > Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 10:29:05 +0200 > > > This series was part of the mvpp2 phylink one but as we reworked it to > > use fixed-link on the DB boards, the SFP commits weren't needed > > anymore for our use case. Two of the three patches still are needed I > > believe (I ditched the one about non-wired SFP cages), so they are sent > > here in a separate series. > > Based upon the discussion of patch #1, it seems there is a desire to make > the i2c-bus property mandatory since it isn't clear if access to the SFP > module without it really all that doable. Thanks for the clarification, I was about to ask for it. I'll make a v2 making i2c-bus mandatory then. Thanks! Antoine -- Antoine Ténart, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com