On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 19 April 2021 14:35:19 Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:08:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 19 April 2021 14:05:18 Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 03:13:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > commit 1fe976d308acb6374c899a4ee8025a0a016e453e upstream.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since commit fee2d546414d ("net: phy: marvell: mv88e6390 temperature
> > > > > sensor reading"), Linux reports the temperature of Topaz hwmon as
> > > > > constant -75°C.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is because switches from the Topaz family (88E6141 / 88E6341) have
> > > > > the address of the temperature sensor register different from Peridot.
> > > > >
> > > > > This address is instead compatible with 88E1510 PHYs, as was used for
> > > > > Topaz before the above mentioned commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Create a new mapping table between switch family and PHY ID for families
> > > > > which don't have a model number. And define PHY IDs for Topaz and Peridot
> > > > > families.
> > > > >
> > > > > Create a new PHY ID and a new PHY driver for Topaz's internal PHY.
> > > > > The only difference from Peridot's PHY driver is the HWMON probing
> > > > > method.
> > > > >
> > > > > Prior this change Topaz's internal PHY is detected by kernel as:
> > > > >
> > > > > PHY [...] driver [Marvell 88E6390] (irq=63)
> > > > >
> > > > > And afterwards as:
> > > > >
> > > > > PHY [...] driver [Marvell 88E6341 Family] (irq=63)
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > BugLink: https://github.com/globalscaletechnologies/linux/issues/1
> > > > > Fixes: fee2d546414d ("net: phy: marvell: mv88e6390 temperature sensor reading")
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Marek Behún <kabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > [pali: Backported to 5.4 version]
> > > > > ---
> > > > > This patch is backported to 5.4 version. Tested on Turris Mox with Topaz switch.
> > > >
> > > > What about a 5.10 version?
> > >
> > > Is manual backport required also for 5.10? I got email that automatic
> > > backporting failed only for 4.19 and 5.4 versions.
> >
> > It also failed for 5.10.y, so yes, if you could provide a version for
> > that tree it would be most appreciated.
>
> Ok! I will prepare it, no problem. I just did not know that it failed
> also for 5.10 as I have not received any email about it.
Odd, I must have forgotten to add that version to the command line
script I run to tell people that a patch failed, sorry about that.
greg k-h
