Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] phy: cadence: Sierra: Add support for skipping configuration | From | Aswath Govindraju <> | Date | Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:48:33 +0530 |
| |
Hi Vinod,
On 04/02/22 11:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote: > 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 >
Thank you for the clarification. I will make note of mentioning this from next time. So, just to confirm, if the fixes are merged then v2 of this patch series will apply cleanly.
Thanks, Aswath
| |