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 02:05:48 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Marek =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beh=FAn?= <kabel@kernel.org>,
        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: <YwgOXL6mFdt8hk+b@lunn.ch>
References: <20220822144136.16627-1-marcus.carlberg@axis.com>
 <20220825123807.3a7e37b7@kernel.org>
 <20220826000605.5cff0db8@thinkpad>
 <20220825155140.038e4d12@kernel.org>
 <20220826012659.32892fef@thinkpad>
 <20220825164206.200f564e@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20220825164206.200f564e@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:42:06PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 01:26:59 +0200 Marek Behún wrote:
> > > Could you explain why? Is there an upstream-supported platform
> > > already in Linus's tree which doesn't boot or something?  
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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 
> 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?

Stable rules say: 

o It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, “This could be a problem…” type thing).

We know anything with a Fixes: tag pretty much gets considered as a
candidate for stable by the machine learning bot, even if we don't
mark it so. So i would say drop the Fixes: tag, it does not fulfil the
stable requirements.

    Andrew