From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> To: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com> Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@novek.ru>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@fb.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:48:31 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <Y4n0H9BbzaX5pCpQ@nanopsycho> (raw) In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4657D9753412AD9DEE7FAB7D9B179@DM6PR11MB4657.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:27:32PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote: >>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:41 PM >> >>Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:37:24PM CET, vfedorenko@novek.ru wrote: >>>From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@fb.com> [...] >>>+static int ptp_ocp_dpll_get_attr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct >>dpll_attr *attr) >>>+{ >>>+ struct ptp_ocp *bp = (struct ptp_ocp *)dpll_priv(dpll); >>>+ int sync; >>>+ >>>+ sync = ioread32(&bp->reg->status) & OCP_STATUS_IN_SYNC; >>>+ dpll_attr_lock_status_set(attr, sync ? DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED : >>DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_UNLOCKED); >> >>get,set,confuse. This attr thing sucks, sorry :/ > >Once again, I feel obligated to add some explanations :) > >getter is ops called by dpll subsystem, it requires data, so here value shall >be set for the caller, right? >Also have explained the reason why this attr struct and functions are done this >way in the response to cover letter concerns. Okay, I will react there. > >> >> >>>+ >>>+ return 0; >>>+} >>>+ >>>+static int ptp_ocp_dpll_pin_get_attr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct >>dpll_pin *pin, >>>+ struct dpll_pin_attr *attr) >>>+{ >>>+ dpll_pin_attr_type_set(attr, DPLL_PIN_TYPE_EXT); >> >>This is exactly what I was talking about in the cover letter. This is >>const, should be put into static struct and passed to >>dpll_device_alloc(). > >Actually this type or some other parameters might change in the run-time, No. This should not change. If the pin is SyncE port, it's that for all lifetime of pin. It cannot turn to be a EXT/SMA connector all of the sudden. This should be definitelly fixed, it's a device topology. Can you explain the exact scenario when the change of personality of pin can happen? Perhaps I'm missing something. >depends on the device, it is up to the driver how it will handle any getter, >if driver knows it won't change it could also have some static member and copy >the data with: dpll_pin_attr_copy(...); > >> >> >>>+ return 0; >>>+} >>>+ >>>+static struct dpll_device_ops dpll_ops = { >>>+ .get = ptp_ocp_dpll_get_attr, >>>+}; >>>+ >>>+static struct dpll_pin_ops dpll_pin_ops = { >>>+ .get = ptp_ocp_dpll_pin_get_attr, >>>+}; >>>+ >>> static int >>> ptp_ocp_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id) >>> { >>>+ const u8 dpll_cookie[DPLL_COOKIE_LEN] = { "OCP" }; >>>+ char pin_desc[PIN_DESC_LEN]; >>> struct devlink *devlink; >>>+ struct dpll_pin *pin; >>> struct ptp_ocp *bp; >>>- int err; >>>+ int err, i; >>> >>> devlink = devlink_alloc(&ptp_ocp_devlink_ops, sizeof(*bp), &pdev- >>>dev); >>> if (!devlink) { >>>@@ -4230,6 +4263,20 @@ ptp_ocp_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct >>pci_device_id *id) >>> >>> ptp_ocp_info(bp); >>> devlink_register(devlink); >>>+ >>>+ bp->dpll = dpll_device_alloc(&dpll_ops, DPLL_TYPE_PPS, dpll_cookie, >>pdev->bus->number, bp, &pdev->dev); >>>+ if (!bp->dpll) { >>>+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "dpll_device_alloc failed\n"); >>>+ goto out; >>>+ } >>>+ dpll_device_register(bp->dpll); >> >>You still have the 2 step init process. I believe it would be better to >>just have dpll_device_create/destroy() to do it in one shot. > >For me either is ok, but due to pins alloc/register as explained below I would >leave it as it is. Please don't, it has no value. Just adds unnecesary code. Have it nice and simple. > >> >> >>>+ >>>+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >>>+ snprintf(pin_desc, PIN_DESC_LEN, "sma%d", i + 1); >>>+ pin = dpll_pin_alloc(pin_desc, PIN_DESC_LEN); >>>+ dpll_pin_register(bp->dpll, pin, &dpll_pin_ops, bp); >> >>Same here, no point of having 2 step init. > >The alloc of a pin is not required if the pin already exist and would be just >registered with another dpll. Please don't. Have a pin created on a single DPLL. Why you make things compitated here? I don't follow. >Once we decide to entirely drop shared pins idea this could be probably done, >although other kernel code usually use this twostep approach? No, it does not. It's is used whatever fits on the individual usecase. > >> >> >>>+ } >>>+ >>> return 0; >> >> >>Btw, did you consider having dpll instance here as and auxdev? It would >>be suitable I believe. It is quite simple to do it. See following patch >>as an example: > >I haven't think about it, definetly gonna take a look to see if there any >benefits in ice. Please do. The proper separation and bus/device modelling is at least one of the benefits. The other one is that all dpll drivers would happily live in drivers/dpll/ side by side. > >Thanks, >Arkadiusz > >> >>commit bd02fd76d1909637c95e8ef13e7fd1e748af910d >>Author: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com> >>Date: Mon Jul 25 10:29:17 2022 +0200 >> >> mlxsw: core_linecards: Introduce per line card auxiliary device >> >> >> >> >>> >>> out: >>>@@ -4247,6 +4294,8 @@ ptp_ocp_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>> struct ptp_ocp *bp = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); >>> struct devlink *devlink = priv_to_devlink(bp); >>> >>>+ dpll_device_unregister(bp->dpll); >>>+ dpll_device_free(bp->dpll); >>> devlink_unregister(devlink); >>> ptp_ocp_detach(bp); >>> pci_disable_device(pdev); >>>-- >>>2.27.0 >>>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> To: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com> Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vfedorenko@novek.ru>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@fb.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 13:48:31 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <Y4n0H9BbzaX5pCpQ@nanopsycho> (raw) In-Reply-To: <DM6PR11MB4657D9753412AD9DEE7FAB7D9B179@DM6PR11MB4657.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 12:27:32PM CET, arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com wrote: >>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> >>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 1:41 PM >> >>Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:37:24PM CET, vfedorenko@novek.ru wrote: >>>From: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@fb.com> [...] >>>+static int ptp_ocp_dpll_get_attr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct >>dpll_attr *attr) >>>+{ >>>+ struct ptp_ocp *bp = (struct ptp_ocp *)dpll_priv(dpll); >>>+ int sync; >>>+ >>>+ sync = ioread32(&bp->reg->status) & OCP_STATUS_IN_SYNC; >>>+ dpll_attr_lock_status_set(attr, sync ? DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_LOCKED : >>DPLL_LOCK_STATUS_UNLOCKED); >> >>get,set,confuse. This attr thing sucks, sorry :/ > >Once again, I feel obligated to add some explanations :) > >getter is ops called by dpll subsystem, it requires data, so here value shall >be set for the caller, right? >Also have explained the reason why this attr struct and functions are done this >way in the response to cover letter concerns. Okay, I will react there. > >> >> >>>+ >>>+ return 0; >>>+} >>>+ >>>+static int ptp_ocp_dpll_pin_get_attr(struct dpll_device *dpll, struct >>dpll_pin *pin, >>>+ struct dpll_pin_attr *attr) >>>+{ >>>+ dpll_pin_attr_type_set(attr, DPLL_PIN_TYPE_EXT); >> >>This is exactly what I was talking about in the cover letter. This is >>const, should be put into static struct and passed to >>dpll_device_alloc(). > >Actually this type or some other parameters might change in the run-time, No. This should not change. If the pin is SyncE port, it's that for all lifetime of pin. It cannot turn to be a EXT/SMA connector all of the sudden. This should be definitelly fixed, it's a device topology. Can you explain the exact scenario when the change of personality of pin can happen? Perhaps I'm missing something. >depends on the device, it is up to the driver how it will handle any getter, >if driver knows it won't change it could also have some static member and copy >the data with: dpll_pin_attr_copy(...); > >> >> >>>+ return 0; >>>+} >>>+ >>>+static struct dpll_device_ops dpll_ops = { >>>+ .get = ptp_ocp_dpll_get_attr, >>>+}; >>>+ >>>+static struct dpll_pin_ops dpll_pin_ops = { >>>+ .get = ptp_ocp_dpll_pin_get_attr, >>>+}; >>>+ >>> static int >>> ptp_ocp_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct pci_device_id *id) >>> { >>>+ const u8 dpll_cookie[DPLL_COOKIE_LEN] = { "OCP" }; >>>+ char pin_desc[PIN_DESC_LEN]; >>> struct devlink *devlink; >>>+ struct dpll_pin *pin; >>> struct ptp_ocp *bp; >>>- int err; >>>+ int err, i; >>> >>> devlink = devlink_alloc(&ptp_ocp_devlink_ops, sizeof(*bp), &pdev- >>>dev); >>> if (!devlink) { >>>@@ -4230,6 +4263,20 @@ ptp_ocp_probe(struct pci_dev *pdev, const struct >>pci_device_id *id) >>> >>> ptp_ocp_info(bp); >>> devlink_register(devlink); >>>+ >>>+ bp->dpll = dpll_device_alloc(&dpll_ops, DPLL_TYPE_PPS, dpll_cookie, >>pdev->bus->number, bp, &pdev->dev); >>>+ if (!bp->dpll) { >>>+ dev_err(&pdev->dev, "dpll_device_alloc failed\n"); >>>+ goto out; >>>+ } >>>+ dpll_device_register(bp->dpll); >> >>You still have the 2 step init process. I believe it would be better to >>just have dpll_device_create/destroy() to do it in one shot. > >For me either is ok, but due to pins alloc/register as explained below I would >leave it as it is. Please don't, it has no value. Just adds unnecesary code. Have it nice and simple. > >> >> >>>+ >>>+ for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) { >>>+ snprintf(pin_desc, PIN_DESC_LEN, "sma%d", i + 1); >>>+ pin = dpll_pin_alloc(pin_desc, PIN_DESC_LEN); >>>+ dpll_pin_register(bp->dpll, pin, &dpll_pin_ops, bp); >> >>Same here, no point of having 2 step init. > >The alloc of a pin is not required if the pin already exist and would be just >registered with another dpll. Please don't. Have a pin created on a single DPLL. Why you make things compitated here? I don't follow. >Once we decide to entirely drop shared pins idea this could be probably done, >although other kernel code usually use this twostep approach? No, it does not. It's is used whatever fits on the individual usecase. > >> >> >>>+ } >>>+ >>> return 0; >> >> >>Btw, did you consider having dpll instance here as and auxdev? It would >>be suitable I believe. It is quite simple to do it. See following patch >>as an example: > >I haven't think about it, definetly gonna take a look to see if there any >benefits in ice. Please do. The proper separation and bus/device modelling is at least one of the benefits. The other one is that all dpll drivers would happily live in drivers/dpll/ side by side. > >Thanks, >Arkadiusz > >> >>commit bd02fd76d1909637c95e8ef13e7fd1e748af910d >>Author: Jiri Pirko <jiri@nvidia.com> >>Date: Mon Jul 25 10:29:17 2022 +0200 >> >> mlxsw: core_linecards: Introduce per line card auxiliary device >> >> >> >> >>> >>> out: >>>@@ -4247,6 +4294,8 @@ ptp_ocp_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) >>> struct ptp_ocp *bp = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); >>> struct devlink *devlink = priv_to_devlink(bp); >>> >>>+ dpll_device_unregister(bp->dpll); >>>+ dpll_device_free(bp->dpll); >>> devlink_unregister(devlink); >>> ptp_ocp_detach(bp); >>> pci_disable_device(pdev); >>>-- >>>2.27.0 >>> _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-02 12:48 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 172+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-11-29 21:37 [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/4] dpll: add dpll_attr/dpll_pin_attr helper classes Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] dpll: Add DPLL framework base functions Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-30 15:21 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 15:21 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 16:23 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 16:23 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-23 16:45 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-23 16:45 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-02 12:28 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-02 12:28 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 16:37 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 16:37 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 12:39 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 12:39 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 14:54 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 14:54 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 16:15 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 16:15 ` Jiri Pirko [not found] ` <20221202212206.3619bd5f@kernel.org> 2022-12-05 10:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-05 10:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-06 0:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-06 0:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-06 8:50 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-06 8:50 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-06 17:27 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-06 17:27 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 13:10 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 13:10 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 16:59 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 16:59 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 8:14 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 8:14 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 16:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 16:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 16:33 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 16:33 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 17:05 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 17:05 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 9:29 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 9:29 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 16:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 16:19 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-12 13:36 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-12 13:36 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-13 18:08 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-13 18:08 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-14 7:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-14 7:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/4] dpll: documentation on DPLL subsystem interface Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` Vadim Fedorenko 2022-12-02 12:43 ` kernel test robot 2022-12-19 9:13 ` Paolo Abeni 2022-12-19 9:13 ` Paolo Abeni 2023-01-12 13:45 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-12 13:45 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-11-29 21:37 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] ptp_ocp: implement DPLL ops Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-29 21:37 ` Vadim Fedorenko 2022-11-30 8:30 ` kernel test robot 2022-11-30 12:41 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 12:41 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 12:48 ` Jiri Pirko [this message] 2022-12-02 12:48 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 14:39 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 14:39 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 16:20 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 16:20 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 0:35 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 0:35 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 8:19 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 8:19 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 2:33 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 2:33 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 13:19 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 13:19 ` Jiri Pirko [not found] ` <20221207090524.3f562eeb@kernel.org> 2022-12-08 11:22 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 0:36 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 9:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 12:32 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] Create common DPLL/clock configuration API Jiri Pirko 2022-11-30 12:32 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 11:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-02 16:12 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-02 16:12 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 2:47 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 2:47 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 14:09 ` netdev.dump 2022-12-07 14:09 ` netdev.dump 2022-12-07 23:21 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-07 23:21 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 11:28 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 11:28 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 0:39 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 0:39 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 0:56 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-09 0:56 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 18:08 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-08 18:08 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-09 11:07 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 11:07 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 14:09 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-09 14:09 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-09 16:31 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 16:31 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-09 17:11 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-09 17:11 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2022-12-12 13:58 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-12 13:58 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-09 14:43 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-09 14:43 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-09 16:30 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-09 16:30 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-10 10:54 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-10 10:54 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-10 14:28 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-10 14:28 ` Jiri Pirko [not found] ` <645a5bfd-0092-2f39-0ff2-3ffb27ccf8fe@machnikowski.net> 2023-01-11 14:17 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 14:17 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 14:40 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2023-01-11 14:40 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2023-01-11 15:30 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 15:30 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 15:54 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2023-01-11 15:54 ` Maciek Machnikowski 2023-01-11 16:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 16:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-10 20:05 ` Jakub Kicinski 2023-01-10 20:05 ` Jakub Kicinski 2023-01-11 8:19 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-11 8:19 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-11 14:16 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 14:16 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 15:04 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-11 15:04 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-11 15:30 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 15:30 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-11 16:14 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-11 16:14 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-12 12:15 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-12 12:15 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-12 14:43 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-12 14:43 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 0:46 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-09 0:46 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-07 14:51 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-07 14:51 ` Jiri Pirko [not found] ` <20221207091946.3115742f@kernel.org> 2022-12-08 12:02 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 12:02 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 0:54 ` Jakub Kicinski 2022-12-08 18:23 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 18:23 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 0:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 0:27 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 11:58 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 11:58 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-08 23:05 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-08 23:05 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2022-12-09 10:01 ` Jiri Pirko 2022-12-09 10:01 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-12 12:23 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-12 12:23 ` Kubalewski, Arkadiusz 2023-01-12 14:50 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-12 14:50 ` Jiri Pirko 2023-01-12 19:09 ` Jakub Kicinski 2023-01-12 19:09 ` Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=Y4n0H9BbzaX5pCpQ@nanopsycho \ --to=jiri@resnulli.us \ --cc=arkadiusz.kubalewski@intel.com \ --cc=jonathan.lemon@gmail.com \ --cc=kuba@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \ --cc=vadfed@fb.com \ --cc=vfedorenko@novek.ru \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.