On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> > 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!
:-o
This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it
happen working on "current" branches.
Sorry about that!
Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if
you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway..
