On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:40:42AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 09:34:50 +0100 > Michael Klein <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 07:07:24AM +0100, Jernej Škrabec wrote: > > >Dne sreda, 12. marec 2025 ob 20:36:28 Srednjeevropski standardni čas je Michael Klein napisal(a): > > >> The Bananapi M1 has three LEDs connected to the RTL8211E ethernet PHY. > > >> Add the corresponding nodes to the device tree. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Klein <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > >This is patch 2/2. Which one is patch 1/2? I got only one. > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20250312193629.85417-1-michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Sorry for any inconvenience in case I messed up the patch submission. > > > > I made two commits for this change and submitted them via `git send-email > > HEAD^^`. The first patch went to netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the second > > to linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which seems logical. Have I > > done something wrong? > > Well, for those really small "series" it's probably better to send all > patches to everyone, especially if the first patch gives some context, > without which the second leaves people (like me) scratching their head. However, netdev does not like pathchsets which contain patches which should not be applied to the netdev tree. DT patches generally go through a different Maintainer to driver changes implementing the binding. So for your DT patch, you could add to the commit message something like: The RTL8211E ethernet PHY driver has recently gained support for controlling PHY LEDs via /sys/class/leds. The Bananapi M1 has three LEDs connected to the RTL8211E PHY. Add the corresponding nodes to the device tree. Andrew
