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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:43:38 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@microchip.com>,
        Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] reset: microchip-sparx5: fix the broken switch reset
In-Reply-To: <20220826115607.1148489-1-michael@walle.cc>
References: <20220826115607.1148489-1-michael@walle.cc>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13
Message-ID: <1156fa93251e3d2d198ec27a671faad0@walle.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Am 2022-08-26 13:56, schrieb Michael Walle:
> The reset which is used by the switch to reset the switch core has many
> different side effects. It is not just a switch reset. Thus don't treat 
> it
> as one, but just issue the reset early during boot.
> 
> Michael Walle (3):
>   reset: microchip-sparx5: issue a reset on startup
>   dt-bindings: net: sparx5: don't require a reset line
>   net: lan966x: make reset optional
> 
>  .../bindings/net/microchip,sparx5-switch.yaml |  2 --
>  .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c |  3 ++-
>  drivers/reset/reset-microchip-sparx5.c        | 22 ++++++++++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Philipp, you could just patch #1, I guess. I'd then
resend patches #2 and #3 to the netdev ML targetting net-next.
As long as the device tree itself isn't changed, there should
be no dependency between these two.

-michael