Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:30:28 +0300 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 02/14] net: dsa: mt7530: fix phylink for port 5 and fix port 5 modes | From | Arınç ÜNAL <> |
| |
On 11.04.2023 18:00, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 04:46:14PM +0300, arinc9.unal@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >> >> There're two code paths for setting up port 5: >> >> mt7530_setup() >> -> mt7530_setup_port5() >> >> mt753x_phylink_mac_config() >> -> mt753x_mac_config() >> -> mt7530_mac_config() >> -> mt7530_setup_port5() >> >> The first code path is supposed to run when PHY muxing is being used. In >> this case, port 5 is somewhat of a hidden port. It won't be defined on the >> devicetree so phylink can't be used to manage the port. >> >> The second code path used to call mt7530_setup_port5() directly under case >> 5 on mt7530_phylink_mac_config() before it was moved to mt7530_mac_config() >> with 88bdef8be9f6 ("net: dsa: mt7530: Extend device data ready for adding a >> new hardware"). mt7530_setup_port5() will never run through this code path >> because the current code on mt7530_setup() bypasses phylink for all cases >> of port 5. >> >> Fix this by leaving it to phylink if port 5 is used as a CPU, DSA, or user >> port. For the cases of PHY muxing or the port being disabled, call >> mt7530_setup_port5() directly from mt7530_setup() without involving >> phylink. >> >> Move setting the interface and P5_DISABLED mode to a more specific >> location. They're supposed to be overwritten if PHY muxing is detected. >> >> Add comments which explain the process. >> >> Tested-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >> Signed-off-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> >> --- > > We have a natural language processing engine (AUTOSEL) which > automatically picks up as candidates for "stable" those patches which > weren't explicitly submitted through the proper process for that (and > they contain words like "fix", "bug", "crash", "leak" etc). > > Your chosen wording, both in the commit title and message, would most > likely trigger that bot, and then you'd have to explain why you chose > this language and not something else more descriptive of your change. > It would be nice if you could rewrite the commit messages for your > entire series to be a bit more succint as to what is the purpose of the > change you are making, and don't use the word "fix" when there is no > problem to be observed.
Will do, thanks.
Arınç
| |