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:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 02:53:42 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: dsa: qca8k: convert to regmap
 read/write API
Message-ID: <20220825235342.ofqedobcb6jg5bxz@skbuf>
References: <20220806192253.7567-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20220806192253.7567-1-ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
 <20220818165119.c5cgk5og7jhmzpo6@skbuf>
 <62ff7b28.170a0220.91820.52c8@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <62ff7b28.170a0220.91820.52c8@mx.google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 01:43:57PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 07:51:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 06, 2022 at 09:22:53PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > Convert qca8k to regmap read/write bulk API. The mgmt eth can write up
> > > to 16 bytes of data at times. Currently we use a custom function to do
> > > it but regmap now supports declaration of read/write bulk even without a
> > > bus.
> > > 
> > > Drop the custom function and rework the regmap function to this new
> > > implementation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Nothing in this change jumps out as wrong to me, but maybe you should
> > copy Mark Brown too when you submit it proper, as the first user of the
> > bulk regmap read/write over Ethernet, IIUC.
> 
> Should I send a v2 without RFC and CC Mark or CC directly here in the
> RFC? This is ready so v2 won't have changes.

v2 without RFC and CC Mark, please.