On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 01:08:25PM +0200, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
> On 26. juli 2017 18:55, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:15:44PM +0200, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
> >It is better to use mdiobus_read/write or if you are nesting mdio
> >busses, mdiobus_read_nested/mdiobus_write_nested.
On 26. juli 2017 18:55, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:15:44PM +0200, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
It is better to use mdiobus_read/write or if you are nesting mdio
busses, mdiobus_read_nested/mdiobus_write_nested. Please test this
code with lockdep enabled.
I have CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLO
Hi Egil,
[auto build test ERROR on net-next/master]
url:
https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Egil-Hjelmeland/net-dsa-lan9303-unicast-offload-fdb-mdb-STP/20170727-074246
config: x86_64-allmodconfig (attached as .config)
compiler: gcc-6 (Debian 6.2.0-3) 6.2.0 20160901
reproduce:
#
> Good. Just one question about process. Could I have posted my work
> as a RFC? To get one round of initial feedback before chopping into
> small patch requests. As well as indicating where I am heading. Or is
> that just waste of human bandwidth?
Depends. Post 100 RFC patches, i won't look at th
Den 26. juli 2017 22:07, skrev David Miller:
From: Andrew Lunn
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:52:24 +0200
So I really want to group the patches into only a few series in order
to not spend months on the process.
I strongly agree with Vivien here. Good patches get accepted in about
3 days. You sho
From: Andrew Lunn
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:52:24 +0200
>> > So I really want to group the patches into only a few series in order
>> > to not spend months on the process.
>
> I strongly agree with Vivien here. Good patches get accepted in about
> 3 days. You should expect feedback within a day
> > So I really want to group the patches into only a few series in order
> > to not spend months on the process.
I strongly agree with Vivien here. Good patches get accepted in about
3 days. You should expect feedback within a day or two. That allows
you to have fast cycle times for getting patch
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 06:15:44PM +0200, Egil Hjelmeland wrote:
> Fixes after testing on actual HW:
>
> - lan9303_mdio_write()/_read() must multiply register number
> by 4 to get offset
>
> - Indirect access (PMI) to phy register only work in I2C mode. In
> MDIO mode phy registers must be ac
On 26. juli 2017 16:30, Vivien Didelot wrote:
Hi Egil,
Egil Hjelmeland writes:
I'd suggest you to split up this one commit in several *atomic* and easy
to review patches and send them separately as on thread named "net: dsa:
lan9303: fix MDIO interface" (also note that imperative is prefered
Hi Egil,
Egil Hjelmeland writes:
>> I'd suggest you to split up this one commit in several *atomic* and easy
>> to review patches and send them separately as on thread named "net: dsa:
>> lan9303: fix MDIO interface" (also note that imperative is prefered for
>> subject lines, see: https://chris
On 25. juli 2017 21:15, Vivien Didelot wrote:
Hi Egil,
Egil Hjelmeland writes:
Fixes after testing on actual HW:
- lan9303_mdio_write()/_read() must multiply register number
by 4 to get offset
- Indirect access (PMI) to phy register only work in I2C mode. In
MDIO mode phy registers mu
Hi Egil,
Egil Hjelmeland writes:
> Fixes after testing on actual HW:
>
> - lan9303_mdio_write()/_read() must multiply register number
> by 4 to get offset
>
> - Indirect access (PMI) to phy register only work in I2C mode. In
> MDIO mode phy registers must be accessed directly. Introduced
>
Fixes after testing on actual HW:
- lan9303_mdio_write()/_read() must multiply register number
by 4 to get offset
- Indirect access (PMI) to phy register only work in I2C mode. In
MDIO mode phy registers must be accessed directly. Introduced
struct lan9303_phy_ops to handle the two modes. R
13 matches
Mail list logo
