For clarity, this commit should be handled the same way for all stable
trees (not just 5.3), and I am replying again since my phone used HTML
which was blocked by the mailing lists :(.
My preference is to omit this commit rather than reverting it in the
near future, but if you would prefer to add this one and then revert it
because it is easier for you I will let you make that call.
Thanks,
Doug
On 11/6/19 7:08 AM, Doug Berger wrote:
> Yes, that was my intention.
>
> I was trying to reduce some code churn and associated merge conflicts in
> the backports.
>
> It is not a functional problem to backport this and then backport the
> recent reversion, but I would think it would simplify things to just not
> backport this one in the first place. Perhaps it's too late to simplify
> things:).
>
> Sorry for the confusion,
> Doug
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2019, 6:56 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 06:43:37AM -0800, Doug Berger wrote:
> > Please do not apply this patch to the stable trees. It has been
> superceded
> > by a recent patch set and reverted upstream.
>
> So drop this and keep the one after this? That would be 25382b991d25
> ("net: bcmgenet: reset 40nm EPHY on energy detect")
>
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
