On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:06:22 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello. > > On 06-02-2014 13:43, Grant Likely wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> I'm afraid that's too late, it has spread very far, so that > >>>>>>>>>>> of_get_phy_mode() handles that property, not "phy-connection-type". > > >>>>>>>>>> Uggg, I guess this is a case of a defacto standard then if the kernel > >>>>>>>>>> doesn't even support it. > > >>>>>>>>> Maybe I forgot to CC you on patch sent to Grant only, I sent a patch a > >>>>>>>>> while ago for of_get_phy_mode() to look for both "phy-mode" and > >>>>>>>>> "phy-connection-type" since the former has been a Linux invention, but > >>>>>>>>> the latter is ePAPR specified. > > >>>>>>>> Here is a link to the actual patch in question, not sure which tree > >>>>>>>> Grant applied it to though: > > >>>>>>>> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1311.2/00048.html > > >>>>>>> It's not the patch mail, it's Grant's "applied" reply, patch is mangled in > >>>>>>> this reply, and I couldn't follow the thread. Here's the actual patch mail: > > >>>>>>> http://marc.info/?l=devicetree&m=138449662807254 > > >>>>>> Florian, I didn't find this patch in Grant's official tree, so maybe you > >>>>>> should ask him where is the patch already? > > >>>>> Sorry, I accidentally dropped it. It will be in the next merge window. > > >>>> Already saw it, thanks. Would that it was in 3.14 instead of course, so > >>>> that I could use "phy-connection-type" in my binding... > > >>> Is 3.14 broken because of missing the patch? If so I'll get it merged as > >> > a bug fix. > > >> No, it's not. I could have used "phy-connection-type" in my binding > >> destined for 3.15 and document it as a preferred property as well. > > > You still can. We just need to make sure that your patch is applied on > > Patches. > > > top of the phy-connection-type patch. > > I'm not sure this trick is possible if the patches are merged via the > different trees... There are two ways to do it. A) by having a common merge commit containing that patch and merged into both branches, or B) just merging the patch in the same tree. Normally I'd suggest B), but I've already picked up the patch and I try very hard not to rebase my commit tree. However, since the branch is stable, you can ask for my branch to be merged into the net branch before applying the dependant patches. The relevant commit id is cf4c9eb5a4, and it is in my devicetree/next branch on git://git.secretlab.ca/git/linux g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
