| Message ID | 20201102231307.13021-3-pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Upstream ONL patch for PHY BCM5461S | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| jkicinski/cover_letter | success | Link |
| jkicinski/fixes_present | success | Link |
| jkicinski/patch_count | success | Link |
| jkicinski/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| jkicinski/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| jkicinski/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| jkicinski/verify_signedoff | fail | Link |
| jkicinski/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| jkicinski/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| jkicinski/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| jkicinski/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| jkicinski/checkpatch | warning | WARNING: Unknown commit id '5ace6bcdb3', maybe rebased or not pulled? WARNING: Unknown commit id 'f32316c63c', maybe rebased or not pulled? |
| jkicinski/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| jkicinski/header_inline | success | Link |
| jkicinski/stable | success | Stable not CCed |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:13:07 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote: > From: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@bigswitch.com> > > The ops field might no be defined, so add a check. This change should be first, otherwise AFAIU if someone builds the kernel in between the commits (e.g. for bisection) it will crash. > The patch is taken from Open Network Linux (ONL), and it was added there > as part of the patch > > packages/base/any/kernels/3.16+deb8/patches/driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461X-phy.patch > > in ONL commit f32316c63c (Support the BCM54616 and BCM5461S.) [1]. Part > of this commit was already upstreamed in Linux commit eeb0149660 (igb: > support BCM54616 PHY) in 2017. > > I applied the forward-ported > > packages/base/any/kernels/5.4-lts/patches/0002-driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461S-phy.patch > > added in ONL commit 5ace6bcdb3 (Add 5.4 LTS kernel build.) [2]. > > [1]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/f32316c63ce3a64de125b7429115c6d45e942bd1 > [2]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/5ace6bcdb37cb8065dcd1d4404b3dcb6424f6331 No need to put this in every commit message. We preserve the cover letter in tree as a merge commit message, so explaining things once in the cover letter is sufficient. > Cc: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@bigswitch.com> Jefferey will need to provide a sign-off as the author. > Cc: John W Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> > Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Dear Jakub, Am 03.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Jakub Kicinski: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:13:07 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote: >> From: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@bigswitch.com> >> >> The ops field might no be defined, so add a check. > > This change should be first, otherwise AFAIU if someone builds the > kernel in between the commits (e.g. for bisection) it will crash. Patch `[PATCH 1/2] ethernet: igb: Support PHY BCM5461S` has phy->ops.force_speed_duplex = igb_phy_force_speed_duplex_82580; so the ordering does not matter. I do not know, if Jeffrey can comment, but probably the check was just adding during development. Maybe an assert should be added instead? >> The patch is taken from Open Network Linux (ONL), and it was added there >> as part of the patch >> >> packages/base/any/kernels/3.16+deb8/patches/driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461X-phy.patch >> >> in ONL commit f32316c63c (Support the BCM54616 and BCM5461S.) [1]. Part >> of this commit was already upstreamed in Linux commit eeb0149660 (igb: >> support BCM54616 PHY) in 2017. >> >> I applied the forward-ported >> >> packages/base/any/kernels/5.4-lts/patches/0002-driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461S-phy.patch >> >> added in ONL commit 5ace6bcdb3 (Add 5.4 LTS kernel build.) [2]. >> >> [1]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/f32316c63ce3a64de125b7429115c6d45e942bd1 >> [2]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/5ace6bcdb37cb8065dcd1d4404b3dcb6424f6331 > > No need to put this in every commit message. > > We preserve the cover letter in tree as a merge commit message, so > explaining things once in the cover letter is sufficient. I remember, but still find it confusing. If I look at a commit with `git show …`, I normally do not think of also looking at a possible cover letter as not many subsystems/projects do it, and I assume a commit is self-contained. Could you share your development process >> Cc: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@bigswitch.com> > > Jefferey will need to provide a sign-off as the author. According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c) are connected by an *or*. > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > in the file; or >> Cc: John W Linville <linville@tuxdriver.com> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de> Kind regards, Paul [3]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 08:35:09 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote: > According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my > understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c) > are connected by an *or*. > > > (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best > > of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source > > license and I have the right under that license to submit that > > work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part > > by me, under the same open source license (unless I am > > permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated > > in the file; or Ack, but then you need to put yourself as the author, because it's you certifying that the code falls under (b). At least that's my understanding.
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/e1000_phy.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/e1000_phy.c index 4e0b4ba09a00..4151e55a6d2a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/e1000_phy.c +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/e1000_phy.c @@ -1107,11 +1107,13 @@ s32 igb_setup_copper_link(struct e1000_hw *hw) /* PHY will be set to 10H, 10F, 100H or 100F * depending on user settings. */ - hw_dbg("Forcing Speed and Duplex\n"); - ret_val = hw->phy.ops.force_speed_duplex(hw); - if (ret_val) { - hw_dbg("Error Forcing Speed and Duplex\n"); - goto out; + if (hw->phy.ops.force_speed_duplex) { + hw_dbg("Forcing Speed and Duplex\n"); + ret_val = hw->phy.ops.force_speed_duplex(hw); + if (ret_val) { + hw_dbg("Error Forcing Speed and Duplex\n"); + goto out; + } } }