Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-174544-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 14:39:23 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
To: Rengarajan.S@microchip.com
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	Woojung.Huh@microchip.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
	UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, kuba@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1] lan78xx: Enable 125 MHz CLK and Auto Speed
 configuration for LAN7801 if NO EEPROM is detected
Message-ID: <20240509133923.GZ1736038@kernel.org>
References: <20240502045503.36298-1-rengarajan.s@microchip.com>
 <20240504084931.GA3167983@kernel.org>
 <d5727bf3d176e3d71abeba7f7c3aa86cf96262cc.camel@microchip.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d5727bf3d176e3d71abeba7f7c3aa86cf96262cc.camel@microchip.com>

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 06:59:03AM +0000, Rengarajan.S@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> Apologies for the delay in response. Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> Please find my comments inline.
> 
> On Sat, 2024-05-04 at 09:49 +0100, Simon Horman wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> > know the content is safe
> > 
> > On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:25:03AM +0530, Rengarajan S wrote:
> > > The 125MHz and 25MHz clock configurations are done in the
> > > initialization
> > > regardless of EEPROM (125MHz is needed for RGMII 1000Mbps
> > > operation). After
> > > a lite reset (lan78xx_reset), these contents go back to
> > > defaults(all 0, so
> > > no 125MHz or 25MHz clock and no ASD/ADD). Also, after the lite
> > > reset, the
> > > LAN7800 enables the ASD/ADD in the absence of EEPROM. There is no
> > > such
> > > check for LAN7801.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rengarajan S <rengarajan.s@microchip.com>
> > 
> > Hi Rengarajan,
> > 
> > This patch seems address two issues.
> > So I think it would be best to split it into two patches.
> 
> Sure. Will split the patch into two and will submit the updated patch
> in the next revision shortly,
> 
> > 
> > Also, are these problems bugs - do they have adverse effect visible
> > by
> > users? If so perhaps they should be targeted at 'net' rather than
> > 'net-next', and an appropriate Fixes tag should appear just above
> > the Signed-off-by line (no blank line in between).
> 
> The changes listed in the patch are feature additions where we give an
> option of configuring the clock and speed in the absence of the EEPROM.
> The current code does not have any bugs related to this. Since, these
> are the additional features/requirements, we are targeting at 'net-
> next' rather than 'net'.

Thanks, I agree net-next is appropriate for such changes.