Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:44:28 +0530 | From | Vinod Koul <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] phy: cadence: Sierra: Add support for skipping configuration |
| |
On 03-02-22, 11:25, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On 03/02/22 5:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On 02-02-22, 20:14, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >> Hi Vinod, > >> > >> On 02/02/22 7:53 pm, Vinod Koul wrote: > >>> On 28-01-22, 12:56, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > >>>> In some cases, a single SerDes instance can be shared between two different > >>>> processors, each using a separate link. In these cases, the SerDes > >>>> configuration is done in an earlier boot stage. Therefore, add support to > >>>> skip reconfiguring, if it is was already configured beforehand. > >>> > >>> This fails to apply, pls rebase and resend > >>> > >> > >> On rebasing, I am seeing no difference in the patch and I am able to > >> apply it on top of linux-next/master commit 6abab1b81b65. May I know if > >> there is any other branch that I would need to rebase this patch on top of? > > > > It should be based on phy-next which is at > > 1f1b0c105b19ac0d90975e2569040da1216489b7 now > > > > I have posted a respin of this patch after rebasing it on top of > phy-next. One aspect that is not clear to me is, phy-next branch does > not have the following commit which is present in linux-next master, > > 29afbd769ca3 phy: cadence: Sierra: fix error handling bugs in probe()
This is in fixes > > When the respin of this patch(v3) is merged with linux-next/master > wouldn't it cause merge-conflicts? > > May I know how would this be handled?
If need arises (we have a dependency) I would merge fixes into next and then apply patches. Cover letter of the patches should mention that
-- ~Vinod
| |