Re: [PATCH RESEND2 net-next 0/8] net: stmmac: qcom-ethqos: further serdes reorganisation

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 04:32:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > I'm working on a series for phy-next which will conflict with this 
> > hunk from Russell's patch 1:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c
> > index 5b1c82459c12..4ea3dce7719f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c
> > @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/ethtool.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> >  #include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/phy.h>
> >  #include <linux/phy/phy.h> // this gets renamed to <linux/phy/phy-provider.h>
> >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/regmap.h>
> 
> That's not too bad.. if that's the extent of the conflict (which is
> probably hard to predict at rc2?) we could let linux-next handle it. 

Yeah, I can't predict the future beyond that.

> Of course assuming Vinod is okay with us merging Russell's entire
> series.
> 
> > If there's no other way to provide a stable tag other than on v7.0-rc1
> > (like for example a snapshot of current net-next/main), which I didn't
> > know wouldn't be possible, then I think going with the route of fewer/
> > more trivial merge conflicts makes sense.
> 
> To be clear, it's only about having a common ancestor, I wasn't actually
> planning on making y'all a tag. I'd just apply the series on top of
> v7.0-rc1 and merge them in. Then anyone can tag the relevant commit 
> in net-next or use as a base for their own work.
> 
> I haven't looked how bad the conflict would be if Russell's work was
> rebased on Linus's tree. If the delta is not too bad, and we can just
> resolve the merge conflict when pulling it into net-next. That's
> probably the cleanest.

I don't think applying the current series on top of v7.0-rc1 would be a
good idea. It depends upon this series in a very non-trivial way,
basically building upon it:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=1056390&state=*

For example, that previous series introduces ethqos_mac_finish_serdes()
- absent in v7.0-rc1 - and this series modifies it (in current net-next/main,
it is calling phy_set_speed(), and after this series, it is calling
phy_set_mode_ext()).

By comparison, the merge conflict with me renaming <linux/phy/phy.h>
would be smaller.

> I don't recall us ever making a "dirty tag" on net-next which would
> propagate few 100s of netdev patches into someone else's tree :S
> IDK how Linus would react. It's the least good option IMO.

Just for my curiosity, what difference would it make to him?