On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 10:45:51 +0200 Ansuel Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 07:23:04PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 02:22:11 +0200 Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > From Documentation phy resume triggers phy reset and restart
> > > auto-negotiation. Add a dedicated function to wait reset to finish as
> > > it was notice a regression where port sometime are not reliable after a
> > > suspend/resume session. The reset wait logic is copied from phy_poll_reset.
> > > Add dedicated suspend function to use genphy_suspend only with QCA8337
> > > phy and set only additional debug settings for QCA8327. With more test
> > > it was reported that QCA8327 doesn't proprely support this mode and
> > > using this cause the unreliability of the switch ports, especially the
> > > malfunction of the port0.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 52a6cdbe43a3 ("net: phy: at803x: add resume/suspend function to qca83xx phy")
> >
> > Strange, checkpatch catches the wrong hash being used, but the
> > verify_fixes script doesn't. Did you mean:
> >
> > Fixes: 15b9df4ece17 ("net: phy: at803x: add resume/suspend function to qca83xx phy")
> >
> > Or is 52a6cdbe43a3 the correct commit hash? Same question for patch 2.
> >
> >
> > The fixes have to be a _separate_ series.
>
> this series contains changes that depends on the fixes. (the 4th patch
> that rename the define is based on this 2 patch) How to handle that?
> I know it was wrong to put net and net-next patch in the same series but
> I don't know how to handle this strange situation. Any hint about that?
If there is a functional dependency you'll need to send the net changes
first and then wait until the trees are merged before sending net-next
changes. Merge usually happens Thursday afternoon (pacific). You can
post the net-next changes as RFC before the trees get merged to make
sure they are reviewed and ready to go in.
> About the wrong hash, yes I wrongly took the hash from my local branch.
Indeed, looks like our checker got broken hence my confusion.
