On 08.04.2019 20:12, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> Splitting the series and waiting for a Tested-by, as proposed by Richard, >> may be problematic because most PHY drivers don't have a dedicated >> maintainer, and we lack the hardware to test. > > Well, we could split out those we know are likely to get tested. I > have a number of boards with Marvell devices i can test. Florian has > Broadcom boards. I also have a couple of boards with Micrel KSZ8041, > which would be interesting because they are Fast Ethernet. Bootlin can > test some of the mscc PHYs. > Great. Could you also test based on the series and the provide a Tested-by for the PHY's which have been tested? Even if I split out let's say the Marvell PHY driver, most likely just few of all the supported Marvell PHY's can be tested. > We also might want to get some targeted testing. The microchip_t1.c > could be interesting, since it is a T1 device. There was another T1 > added in the last year, but i forget which. > The T1 PHY driver isn't included in this series. It uses another feature constant: PHY_BASIC_T1_FEATURES > Just doing this testing might give us an idea if we really should > expect problems. > Sure. I tested and applied this change to the Realtek PHY driver already. > Andrew > Heiner _______________________________________________ Linux-rockchip mailing list Linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
