Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180122.105750.1953487955261969355.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <CAPv3WKeqEd6Hcy0NdPpiVVA1ioUYY4zs_0zai2gwkCPtM1yaJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180122.093525.1549534484738907077.davem@davemloft.net> <20180122144342.GB16923@lunn.ch>
 <20180122.105750.1953487955261969355.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:09:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPv3WKey+JHrgasLigMFH5vAdjfz0Z18z0BVF1AQ_poV5CgQbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next: PATCH v4 0/7] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Antoine_T=C3=A9nart?= <antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Gregory_Cl=C3=A9ment?= 
        <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
        Stefan Chulski <stefanc@marvell.com>, nadavh@marvell.com,
        Neta Zur Hershkovits <neta@marvell.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Grzegorz Jaszczyk <jaz@semihalf.com>,
        Tomasz Nowicki <tn@semihalf.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-01-22 16:57 GMT+01:00 David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>:
> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:43:42 +0100
>
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:35:25AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Marcin Wojtas <mw@semihalf.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:00:37 +0100
>>>
>>> > There's a discussion about the ACPI vs generic MDIO/PHY change under
>>> > initial version of the patchset, however the patches in question were
>>> > for now abandoned from further re-sends.
>>>
>>> But doesn't the results of that discussion determine whether the way ACPI
>>> is being used in this patch series is what we want to do or not?
>>
>> Hi David
>>
>> The patches submitted here don't involve any ACPI for MDIO or PHY. It
>> is all MAC. And it is using standard ACPI primitives for devices,
>> nothing new.
>>
>> It is not setting any precedence for MDIO and PHY. That is totally out
>> of scope for these patches. Whatever is decided for MDIO and PHY can
>> be added later.
>
> Thanks for all of the clarifications.
>
> Series applied to net-next, thank you.

Great, thanks!