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;
IronPort-SDR: Otnu5zaWQnGtJeKyFJ4oY4LrHRbzk1keJeICfFcy3n7QvBPhI2tkHpler6TjeFRsQFjTIuLjPC
 rkecIdjwTgPbC8cAWgWHGOXs6mw/g5SasaeFeB0YK4KvfLFJUHEGihqloZ65K7PL/lZxfIr4Fm
 7bxyS1Tz1FAqbTSy9xla2EBe36cvR913P/g+auO53KwNyUsPmLK5fp5p9+7cLZTUyEh/rmkz0t
 pMhLUnLKC5RO9XsCiX/Gj6QjIjxUs4bdhOr9VTfq1BFJjJmRbYk6fflBU2r6/d4GLH6Kz7J1Bn
 sgM=
Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 13:31:56 +0200
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
CC:     <nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com>, <roopa@cumulusnetworks.com>,
        <kuba@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 0/2] bridge: mrp: Update MRP_PORT_ROLE
Message-ID: <20200624113156.hsutqewk4xntmkld@soft-dev3.localdomain>
References: <20200623090541.2964760-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <20200623.143821.491798381160245817.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200623.143821.491798381160245817.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

The 06/23/2020 14:38, David Miller wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 11:05:39 +0200
> 
> > This patch series does the following:
> > - fixes the enum br_mrp_port_role_type. It removes the port role none(0x2)
> >   because this is in conflict with the standard. The standard defines the
> >   interconnect port role as value 0x2.
> > - adds checks regarding current defined port roles: primary(0x0) and
> >   secondary(0x1).
> >
> > v2:
> >  - add the validation code when setting the port role.
> 
> Series applied, thank you.

Thanks. Will these patches be applied also on net-next?
Because if I start now to add support for the interconnect port, these
patches are needed on net-next. Or do I need to add these patches to the
patch series for the interconnect port?
What is the correct way of doing this?

-- 
/Horatiu