[U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-net.git master

Michael Walle
2019-11-03T15:22:48Z

Am 2019-11-02 16:05, schrieb Tom Rini:
[snip]
> But again, I've given up. I say that the ABI meant that the wrong
> value
> was supposed to work since that's what happened and a new version of
> the
> binding needed to be used where the right value must be used. Others
> disagree. I'm not holding U-Boot up on the new changes over this, I
> just haven't put together the PR. It's on my short list now.

I want to rebase my cleanup and device tree support for the Atheros PHY
onto the patches by Vladimir. Although I do have some problems/questions
now:

- will the whole series [1] be pulled altogether?
- there is a kconfig option to control the EEE option. Wouldn't it be
better to put that into a device tree property option too?
- there were some cleanups I'd do another way, for example the clock
enumeration uses "BIT(0) | BIT(1)" instead of 3. I'd use a mask and the
correct enumeration and FIELD_PREP(). So should I base my patch on
Vladimirs patch? Should Vladimir post a new patch?

To be frank, I'd rather pull Vladimirs patches and change (or drop them
if they are superseeded mine), if everyone is ok with that. I'd propose
the following:
- I rebase my patches onto Vladimirs patches
- change some of Vladimirs patches
- privately, mail the patch series to Vladimir, then he can review
them, add SOB or other tags
- If he is ok with the changes, I'll post another "atheros PHY cleanup
and device tree support" series with patches from Vladimir and myself.

I don't really want to hijack any patches, but patching the patch seems
to be not really good.

Does anybody know if the "disable smartEEE" should go into the linux phy
driver too? As far as I understand it, linux configures the complete phy
itself, (eg. it might even do a hardware reset).

--
-michael

[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/1031360/