On 09/18/2018 01:17 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> On 18.09.2018 22:02, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 09/18/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>> I think I've seen a similar or same patch before, not sure why it
>>> didn't make it yet. When being in state PHY_HALTED we don't have to
>>> reschedul
On 18.09.2018 22:02, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 09/18/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> I think I've seen a similar or same patch before, not sure why it
>> didn't make it yet. When being in state PHY_HALTED we don't have to
>> reschedule the state machine, phy_start() will start it again.
On 09/18/2018 12:12 PM, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
> I think I've seen a similar or same patch before, not sure why it
> didn't make it yet. When being in state PHY_HALTED we don't have to
> reschedule the state machine, phy_start() will start it again.
Yes, this is conceptually the same patch as as t
I think I've seen a similar or same patch before, not sure why it
didn't make it yet. When being in state PHY_HALTED we don't have to
reschedule the state machine, phy_start() will start it again.
Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit
---
drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1
