Thread (20 messages) 20 messages, 6 authors, 21h ago

Re: [PATCH v4 phy-next 0/9] RCW override for 10G Lynx dynamic protocol reconfiguration

From: "Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-07-28 15:30:21
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree, linux-phy, lkml

Hi Oltean,

Le 28/07/2026 à 15:47, Vladimir Oltean a écrit :
Hi Christophe,

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 06:01:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:15:54AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
quoted
Ioana Ciornei (4):
   soc: fsl: guts: use a macro to encode the DCFG CCSR space
   soc: fsl: guts: add a global structure to hold state
   soc: fsl: guts: add a central fsl_guts_read() function
   soc: fsl: guts: make it easier to determine on which SoC we are
     running

Vladimir Oltean (5):
   soc: fsl: guts: perform fsl_guts_init() error teardown in reverse
     order of setup
   soc: fsl: guts: make fsl_soc_data available after fsl_guts_init()
   dt-bindings: fsl: layerscape-dcfg: define DCFG_DCSR region
   soc: fsl: guts: implement the RCW override procedure
   phy: lynx-10g: use RCW override procedure for dynamic protocol change
Even though I intended these changes for linux-phy (they are also
build-tested there), I'm fine either with these changes taken through
Vinod's tree with Christophe's ACK for patches 1-8, or through
Christophe's tree with Vinod's ACK for patch 9, really.

I see on Patchwork there's a minor issue in the commit message of patch 3/9:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.kernel.org%2Fproject%2Flinux-phy%2Fpatch%2F20260721231603.67865-4-vladimir.oltean%40nxp.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793851204%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AUY%2BIZEiFp3aLAO4HlHQCrJ9ZnCyFqzshPEGq6CpfmU%3D&reserved=0
"WARNING: 'struture' may be misspelled - perhaps 'structure'?"

Could this be fixed up while applying, if there is no other feedback?
Do you have feedback/a preference for how these patches should be handled?

I see Vinod acked patch 9, so I guess that means his preference would be
for you to pick up the entire series (which is indivisible).

I checked that the patches apply to your soc_fsl branch:
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.kernel.org%2Fpub%2Fscm%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fgit%2Fchleroy%2Flinux.git%2F%3Fh%3Dsoc_fsl&data=05%7C02%7Cchristophe.leroy%40csgroup.eu%7Cdfcaa68452fc46a3285108deecaed436%7C8b87af7d86474dc78df45f69a2011bb5%7C0%7C0%7C639208432793877128%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xjpwRCMIncWpW89zKzhil20%2BcUhnG4LPaFNbxw1pue8%3D&reserved=0
Hum ... Seems like I overlooked your message as it was flagged phy-next 
and I was on summer vacation on last two weeks.

I'm fine with taking them via soc_fsl tree. I won't take them today 
because I'm already pushing a large series from Paul Louvel but I'd push 
them by tomorrow or thurday.

Please raise hand if nothing happened by friday.

Christophe
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help