Re: [PATCH RESEND2 net-next 0/8] net: stmmac: qcom-ethqos: further serdes reorganisation

On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 04:32:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:

quoted

I'm working on a series for phy-next which will conflict with this 
hunk from Russell's patch 1:

diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c
index 5b1c82459c12..4ea3dce7719f 100644
--- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c
+++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-sgmii-eth.c

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 #include <linux/ethtool.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/phy.h>
 #include <linux/phy/phy.h> // this gets renamed to <linux/phy/phy-provider.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/regmap.h>

That's not too bad.. if that's the extent of the conflict (which is
probably hard to predict at rc2?) we could let linux-next handle it. 

Yeah, I can't predict the future beyond that.

Of course assuming Vinod is okay with us merging Russell's entire
series.

quoted

If there's no other way to provide a stable tag other than on v7.0-rc1
(like for example a snapshot of current net-next/main), which I didn't
know wouldn't be possible, then I think going with the route of fewer/
more trivial merge conflicts makes sense.

To be clear, it's only about having a common ancestor, I wasn't actually
planning on making y'all a tag. I'd just apply the series on top of
v7.0-rc1 and merge them in. Then anyone can tag the relevant commit 
in net-next or use as a base for their own work.

I haven't looked how bad the conflict would be if Russell's work was
rebased on Linus's tree. If the delta is not too bad, and we can just
resolve the merge conflict when pulling it into net-next. That's
probably the cleanest.

I don't think applying the current series on top of v7.0-rc1 would be a
good idea. It depends upon this series in a very non-trivial way,
basically building upon it:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=1056390&state=*

For example, that previous series introduces ethqos_mac_finish_serdes()
- absent in v7.0-rc1 - and this series modifies it (in current net-next/main,
it is calling phy_set_speed(), and after this series, it is calling
phy_set_mode_ext()).

By comparison, the merge conflict with me renaming <linux/phy/phy.h>
would be smaller.

I don't recall us ever making a "dirty tag" on net-next which would
propagate few 100s of netdev patches into someone else's tree :S
IDK how Linus would react. It's the least good option IMO.

Just for my curiosity, what difference would it make to him?