Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 25 Aug 2022 16:42:06 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Marek =?UTF-8?B?QmVow7pu?= <kabel@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc:     Marcus Carlberg <marcus.carlberg@axis.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, <kernel@axis.com>,
        Pavana Sharma <pavana.sharma@digi.com>,
        Ashkan Boldaji <ashkan.boldaji@digi.com>,
        <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: support RGMII cmode
Message-ID: <20220825164206.200f564e@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220826012659.32892fef@thinkpad>
References: <20220822144136.16627-1-marcus.carlberg@axis.com>
        <20220825123807.3a7e37b7@kernel.org>
        <20220826000605.5cff0db8@thinkpad>
        <20220825155140.038e4d12@kernel.org>
        <20220826012659.32892fef@thinkpad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 01:26:59 +0200 Marek Beh=C3=BAn wrote:
> > Could you explain why? Is there an upstream-supported platform
> > already in Linus's tree which doesn't boot or something? =20
>=20
> If you mean whether there is a device-tree of such a device, they I
> don't think so, because AFAIK there isn't a device-tree with 6393 in
> upstream Linux other than CN9130-CRB.
>=20
> But it is possible though that there is such a device which has
> everything but the switch supported on older kernels, due to this RGMII
> bug.
>=20
> I think RGMII should have been supported on this switch when I send the
> patch adding support for it, and it is a bug that it is not, becuase
> RGMII is supported for similar switches driven by mv88e6xxx driver
> (6390, for example). I don't know why I overlooked it then.
>=20
> Note that I wouldn't consider adding support for USXGMII a fix, because
> although the switch can do it, it was never done with this driver.
>=20
> But if you think it doesn't apply anyway, remove the Fixes tag. This is
> just my opinion that it should stay.

I see, I can only go by our general guidance of not treating omissions=20
as fixes, but I lack the knowledge to be certain what's right here.
Anyone willing to cast a tie-break vote? Andrew? net or net-next?