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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210103012544.3259029-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
 <20210103012544.3259029-2-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
 <X/EnSv8gyprpOWRr@lunn.ch> <CAFBinCD7cOPZf8NpkhpRG2PiuMcjtqwxu7vQQoXULpCBbTCAoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210104135237.064fba8e@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210104135237.064fba8e@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jan 2021 00:54:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFBinCBH8Kh8uykGwXad-uMXxt3snhSvQR7ksyUZOPY9tXnbkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Enable GSWIP_MII_CFG_EN also
 for internal PHYs
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, vivien.didelot@gmail.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, olteanv@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Jakub,


On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 10:52 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 03:12:21 +0100 Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 3:09 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 02:25:43AM +0100, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > > > Enable GSWIP_MII_CFG_EN also for internal PHYs to make traffic flow.
> > > > Without this the PHY link is detected properly and ethtool statistics
> > > > for TX are increasing but there's no RX traffic coming in.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 14fceff4771e51 ("net: dsa: Add Lantiq / Intel DSA driver for vrx200")
> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > >
> > > Hi Martin
> > >
> > > No need to Cc: stable. David or Jakub will handle the backport to
> > > stable.  You should however set the subject to [PATCH net 1/2] and
> > > base the patches on the net tree, not net-next.
> > do you recommend re-sending these patches and changing the subject?
> > the lantiq_gswip.c driver is identical in -net and -net-next and so
> > the patch will apply fine in both cases
>
> Resend is pretty much always a safe bet. But since as you said trees
> are identical at the moment I made an exception applied as is :)
awesome, thank you! :-)


Best regards,
Martin