Hi Arınç, On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:08:19PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote: > On 3.04.2023 04:16, Daniel Golle wrote: > > The MediaTek MT7988 SoC comes with a built-in switch very similar to > > previous MT7530 and MT7531. However, the switch address space is mapped > > into the SoCs memory space rather than being connected via MDIO. > > Using MMIO simplifies register access and also removes the need for a bus > > lock, and for that reason also makes interrupt handling more light-weight. > > > > Note that this is different from previous SoCs like MT7621 and MT7623N > > which also came with an integrated MT7530-like switch which yet had to be > > accessed via MDIO. > > > > Split-off the part of the driver registering an MDIO driver, then add > > another module acting as MMIO/platform driver. > > > > The whole series has been tested on various MediaTek boards: > > * MT7623A + MT7530 (BPi-R2) > > * MT7986A + MT7531 (BPi-R3) > > * MT7988A reference board > > You did not address the incorrect information I pointed out here. Now that I'm sorry, that was certainly not intentional and I may have missed your comments. Actually it doesn't look like they have made it to the netdev list archive or patchwork either. > the patch series is applied, people reading this on the merge branch commit > will be misled by the misinformation. I've changed Kconfig stuff according to your recommendation and also addressed possible misleading USXGMII and 10GBase-KR support by introducing MT7988-specific functions and using 'internal' PHY mode. So which of your comments have not been addressed? > > > > > Changes since v1: > > * use 'internal' PHY mode where appropriate > > * use regmap_update_bits in mt7530_rmw > > * improve dt-bindings > > As a maintainer of the said dt-bindings, I pointed out almost 7 things for > you to change. Of those 7 points, you only did one, a trivial grammar > change. The patch series is applied now so one of us maintainers (you are > one too now) need to fix it with additional patches. I was also surprised the series made it to net-next so quickly, but it wasn't me applying it, I merly posted v2 with all comments I received addressed. Me and supposedly also netdevbpf maintainers use patchwork to track patches and whether comments have been addressed. Can you point me to emails with the comments which haven't been addressed there? Looking in patchwork for the dt-bindings patch [1] I don't see any comments there. Thank you for reviewing! Daniel [1]: See patchwork tracking for RFCv3, v1 and v2. Prior to RFCv3 the series didn't have the dt-bindings addition, I introduced it with RFCv3 when splitting the series into many small changes: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/9b504e3e88807bfb62022c0877451933d30abeb5.1680105013.git.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/fef2cb2fe3d2b70fa46e93107a0c862f53bb3bfa.1680180959.git.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/dffacdb59aea462c9f7d4242cf9563a04cf79807.1680483896.git.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
