Re: [PATCH resend v4 0/3] phy: Add driver for lan966x Serdes driver

[Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>]

The 11/16/2021 19:12, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On 16/11/2021 12:52:28+0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > The 11/16/2021 17:13, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > >
> > > On 16-11-21, 11:56, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > The 11/16/2021 16:15, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 16-11-21, 11:21, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > > > The 11/16/2021 11:08, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Kison, Vinod,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you let me know if you have more comments to this patch series?
> > > > > > Otherwise can you ack on it? Because I would like to have the patches
> > > > > > merged via netdev if that is OK for you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any reason for merge thru netdev, there is no dependency and now with
> > > > > merge window closed, I can pick this up..
> > > >
> > > > Because I would like to send some patches for the lan966x network driver.
> > > > And these network patches depend on the serdes driver.
> > >
> > > There cant be a compile time dependency... the network driver can use
> > > the phy apis.. I dont think it is required here... Did I miss something
> > > obvious?
> >
> > You are right, there is no compile time dependency and the network
> > driver can use the PHY APIs.
> >
> > But at runtime the network driver will need to configure the serdes
> > using the PHY API to be able to work properly.
> >
> 
> It is fine if it doesn't work at runtime with only one branch, both will
> get merged in linux-next and you can test with that if necessary. I'll
> let both series go through separate trees.

Ah.. sorry for all the confusion. I though they need to go through the
same tree.

So Vinod, if you think that the patch series is OK please take it in
your tree, otherwise let me know what comments you have.

> 
> 
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com

-- 
/Horatiu