From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: mvneta: SGMII fixed-link not so fixed Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:02:41 -0700 Message-ID: <55FB4691.1060802@gmail.com> References: <20150914103207.GH21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55F6AA25.2070603@list.ru> <20150914114209.GL21084@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20150917.151247.2129216999071943354.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, stsp@list.ru, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller , linux@arm.linux.org.uk Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.220.54]:35179 "EHLO mail-pa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751723AbbIQXCs (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 19:02:48 -0400 Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so32000134pac.2 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:02:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150917.151247.2129216999071943354.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17/09/15 15:12, David Miller wrote: > From: Russell King - ARM Linux > Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:42:09 +0100 > >> Thanks, I think that will solve it. I have to wonder why that patch >> (f8af8e6eb9509 in mainline) didn't made it into v4.2 though, as it's >> billed as a regression that occurred in the previous merge window, and >> given that it was sent in July, and we're now in September. As it >> wasn't in v4.2, it looks like it should be a stable candidate. > > The series had a whole bunch of non bug fixes in it and we were in > the final phases of 4.2, in which case I defer to applying patches > to net-next only unless I'm told otherwise. To your defense, Staas and I kept arguing for a while, slowing the entire process down until we agreed on a proper solution, the submission was targeting your 'net' tree, but I did not realize until now that these got applied to 'net-next'. > > It's up the the patch/series author to let me know that an important > regression fix is hidden in there, but they should have submitted > it seperately from the rest in that kind of situation anyways. > >> David, any objections to having the stable guys pick this regression >> fix up, if not already done so? > > More than this patch is needed, the one before it (3/4) instantiates > the necessary property in the DT, for example. > > I can queue up the whole series for -stable if you want. I think this would be a good thing, mvneta-based platforms are fairly popular. Thank you! -- Florian