On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hello Jakub,
>
> On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote:
> > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback
> > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and
> > > 5.00a [2].
> > >
> > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too.
> > >
> > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a.
> > >
> > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014
> > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.bor...@st.com>
> >
> > Applied to net-next.
>
> This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location.
> The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line:
>
> @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = {
>
> The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add
> flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead:
>
> @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = {
>
> I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's
> better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the
> change for the correct variant.
Agree,
the patch get applied to the wrong place!
Antonio
>
> Cheers,
> Ahmad
>
>
