On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 08:17:19PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 05:00:59PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is a re-hash of the previous RFC series, this time using the > > suggestion from Vladimir to create a swnode based fixed-link > > specifier. > > > > Most of the changes are to DSA and phylink code from the previous > > series. I've tested on my Clearfog (which has just one Marvell DSA > > switch) and it works there - also tested without the fixed-link > > specified in DT. > > I had some comments I wanted to leave on the previous RFC patch set > (which in turn is essentially identical to this one, hence they still > apply), but I held off because I thought you were waiting for some > feedback from Andrew. Has something changed? I've got fed up of waiting for very little feedback on patches I send. Jakub was fully prepared to apply my v2 RFC patches after - as he saw it - everyone that was likely to respond had responded. The only thing that delayed them was your eventual comments about re-working how it was being done. Yet again, posting the RFC series created very little in the way of feedback. I'm getting to the point of thinking its a waste of time posting RFC patches - it's counter productive. RFC means "request for comments" but it seems that many interpret it as "I can ignore it". So, I'm saying sod it now. I'm posting patches that I create without RFC tags. That means reviewers need to be on the ball if they want to comment _before_ they get merged into net-next. Posting RFC is a total waste of time, IMHO. You've proven it as well with some of your comments on this series, which I'll address in a separate reply. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 40Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
