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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] Revert "net: bcmgenet: use RGMII loopback for MAC
 reset"
To:     Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1584395096-41674-1-git-send-email-opendmb@gmail.com>
 <1584395096-41674-2-git-send-email-opendmb@gmail.com>
 <de2ef417-ddf0-516f-4b11-ce834764497c@broadcom.com>
From:   Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4f4a7695-0c6c-c5e8-84b2-602d0ee4fd29@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 12:43:09 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <de2ef417-ddf0-516f-4b11-ce834764497c@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/16/2020 7:21 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/16/2020 2:44 PM, Doug Berger wrote:
>> This reverts commit 3a55402c93877d291b0a612d25edb03d1b4b93ac.
>>
>> This is not a good solution when connecting to an external switch
>> that may not support the isolation of the TXC signal resulting in
>> output driver contention on the pin.
>>
>> A different solution is necessary.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> 
> Did you want this to be tagged with:
> 
> Fixes: 3a55402c9387 ("net: bcmgenet: use RGMII loopback for MAC reset")
> 
> so as to make it more explicit how the two commits relate to each other?
I wasn't sure how best to tag this commit.

It seems odd to indicate that the reversion of a commit fixes the commit
that is reverted, but maybe that is the best way. It is more accurate to
say that the reversion of the commit reintroduces the problem that it
was intended to address, and therefore doesn't fix anything but rather
trades one problem for another.

It is clearer that the second commit fixes the original issue and so I
tagged it accordingly, but it is far less clear how a reversion like
this should be tagged.

If you think it is clearer to tag this as you describe I have no objection.

> 
> Thanks!
> --
> Florian
> 
Thank you for taking a look at this and for the feedback,
    Doug