Message ID | 20210411102344.2834328-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: backports for Linux 5.4 | expand |
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:23:42PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >Hello, > >This backports two patches (which could not be backported automatically >because the gswip_phylink_mac_link_up function is different in Linux 5.4 >compared to 5.7 and newer) for the lantiq_gswip driver: >- commit 3e9005be87777afc902b9f5497495898202d335d upstream. >- commit 4b5923249b8fa427943b50b8f35265176472be38 upstream. > >This is the first time that I am doing such a backport so I am not >sure how to mention the required modifications. I added them at the >bottom of each patch with another Signed-off-by. If this is not correct >then please suggest how I can do it rights. Hey Martin, Your backport works, but I'd rather take 5b502a7b2992 ("net: dsa: propagate resolved link config via mac_link_up()") along with the backport instead. This means that we don't diverge from upstream too much and will make future backports easier. I've queued up these 3 commits to 5.4, thanks!
Hi Sasha, On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 6:48 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:23:42PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > >Hello, > > > >This backports two patches (which could not be backported automatically > >because the gswip_phylink_mac_link_up function is different in Linux 5.4 > >compared to 5.7 and newer) for the lantiq_gswip driver: > >- commit 3e9005be87777afc902b9f5497495898202d335d upstream. > >- commit 4b5923249b8fa427943b50b8f35265176472be38 upstream. > > > >This is the first time that I am doing such a backport so I am not > >sure how to mention the required modifications. I added them at the > >bottom of each patch with another Signed-off-by. If this is not correct > >then please suggest how I can do it rights. > > Hey Martin, > > Your backport works, but I'd rather take 5b502a7b2992 ("net: dsa: > propagate resolved link config via mac_link_up()") along with the > backport instead. This means that we don't diverge from upstream too > much and will make future backports easier. > > I've queued up these 3 commits to 5.4, thanks! in general I am fine with your suggested approach. however, I think at least one more backport is required then: 91a208f2185ad4855ff03c342d0b7e4f5fc6f5df ("net: phylink: propagate resolved link config via mac_link_up()") Patches should be backported in a specific order also so we don't break git bisect: - phylink patch - dsa patch - the two lantiq GSWIP patches Best regards, Martin
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 07:17:46PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >Hi Sasha, > >On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 6:48 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:23:42PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> >This backports two patches (which could not be backported automatically >> >because the gswip_phylink_mac_link_up function is different in Linux 5.4 >> >compared to 5.7 and newer) for the lantiq_gswip driver: >> >- commit 3e9005be87777afc902b9f5497495898202d335d upstream. >> >- commit 4b5923249b8fa427943b50b8f35265176472be38 upstream. >> > >> >This is the first time that I am doing such a backport so I am not >> >sure how to mention the required modifications. I added them at the >> >bottom of each patch with another Signed-off-by. If this is not correct >> >then please suggest how I can do it rights. >> >> Hey Martin, >> >> Your backport works, but I'd rather take 5b502a7b2992 ("net: dsa: >> propagate resolved link config via mac_link_up()") along with the >> backport instead. This means that we don't diverge from upstream too >> much and will make future backports easier. >> >> I've queued up these 3 commits to 5.4, thanks! >in general I am fine with your suggested approach. however, I think at >least one more backport is required then: >91a208f2185ad4855ff03c342d0b7e4f5fc6f5df ("net: phylink: propagate >resolved link config via mac_link_up()") >Patches should be backported in a specific order also so we don't >break git bisect: >- phylink patch >- dsa patch >- the two lantiq GSWIP patches Good point, I haven't realized there's an additional phylink patch (which on it's own requires more dependencies and follow-ups). In this case I'll just grab your backport, thanks!