On Sat, Jan 24, 2026 at 02:04:09AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 11:13:26AM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:

quoted

According to patchwork, this doesn't apply to net-next. That's odd,
it was generated on last night's net next, and although there has been
further work, it rebases cleanly on top of this morning's. How can
these changes:

 drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-imx.c   |  6 +++++-
 drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/stmmac_main.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

which happened in net-next overnight result in this change in patch 1:

 drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac-qcom-ethqos.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

failing to apply?

No, patchwork is clearly wrong.

Conflicts with commit dc6597fab3e3 ("net: stmmac: dwmac-imx: keep
preamble before sfd on i.MX8MP"), merged in the meantime.

In include/linux/stmmac.h (your commit "net: stmmac: add stmmac core
serdes support" adds a "struct phy;" line, but that other commit
modifies the context by inserting:

#define STMMAC_FLAG_KEEP_PREAMBLE_BEFORE_SFD	BIT(14)

(the last stmmac flag in your context, at patch generation time, was:
#define STMMAC_FLAG_HWTSTAMP_CORRECT_LATENCY	BIT(13)
)

I still maintain that this is silly - to mark all patches as such
and without any details about the problem applying the patches is
not helpful.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!