Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 25 May 2020 22:07:51 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, andrew@lunn.ch,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, hkallweit1@gmail.com,
        madalin.bucur@oss.nxp.com, calvin.johnson@oss.nxp.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/11] net: phy: Don't report success if devices weren't
 found
Message-ID: <20200525210751.GN1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20200522213059.1535892-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20200522213059.1535892-2-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20200523182054.GW1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <e6e08ca4-5a6d-5ea3-0f97-946f1d403568@arm.com>
 <20200525094536.GK1551@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <be729566-5c63-a711-9a99-acc53d871b88@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <be729566-5c63-a711-9a99-acc53d871b88@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 04:02:13PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > So, I think you're going to have to add a work-around to ignore bit 0,
> > which brings up the question whether this is worth it or not.
> 
> It does ignore bit 0, it gets turned into the C22 regs flag, and
> cleared/ignored in the remainder of the code (do to MMD loop indexes
> starting at 1).

However, I've already pointed out that that isn't the case in a
number of functions that I listed in another email, and I suspect
was glossed over.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC for 0.8m (est. 1762m) line in suburbia: sync at 13.1Mbps down 424kbps up