[PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Bin Meng]

set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
clear by using true instead of 1.

Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
---

 net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
--- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
+++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
@@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
 		struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
 
 		if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
-			eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
+			eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
 
 		return 0;
 	}
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH 2/3] net: fec_mxc: Declare 'promisc' as bool

[Bin Meng]

priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call
which accepts a bool type instead of char.

Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
---

 drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644
--- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
+++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv {
 	struct clk clk_ref;
 	struct clk clk_ptp;
 	u32 clk_rate;
-	char promisc;
+	bool promisc;
 };
 
 /**
-- 
2.25.1

[PATCH 3/3] net: tsec: Make redundant_init() static

[Bin Meng]

redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.

Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
---

 drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c
index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tsec.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c
@@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev)
  * of the eTSEC port initialization sequence,
  * the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized.
  */
-void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
+static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
 {
 	struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs;
 	uint t, count = 0;
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> clear by using true instead of 1.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
>  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
>  		struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
>  
>  		if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> -			eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> +			eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
>  
>  		return 0;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] net: fec_mxc: Declare 'promisc' as bool

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:45PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call
> which accepts a bool type instead of char.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv {
>  	struct clk clk_ref;
>  	struct clk clk_ptp;
>  	u32 clk_rate;
> -	char promisc;
> +	bool promisc;
>  };
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: tsec: Make redundant_init() static

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:46PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c
> index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c
> @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev)
>   * of the eTSEC port initialization sequence,
>   * the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized.
>   */
> -void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
> +static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
>  {
>  	struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs;
>  	uint t, count = 0;
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>

About this whole redundant_init thing... the Linux gianfar driver
doesn't do it, and it was added by this commit:

commit aada81de703e0fb26ae1a8dc8fc8d6a7a37fa3c9
Author: chenhui zhao <chenhui.zhao@freescale.com>
Date:   Mon Oct 3 08:38:50 2011 -0500

    powerpc/mpc8548: Add workaround for erratum NMG_eTSEC129

    Erratum NMG_eTSEC129 (eTSEC86 in MPC8548 document) applies to some early
    verion silicons. This workaround detects if the eTSEC Rx logic is properly
    initialized, and reinitialize the eTSEC Rx logic.

    Signed-off-by: Gong Chen <g.chen@freescale.com>
    Signed-off-by: Zhao Chenhui <chenhui.zhao@freescale.com>
    Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>

Internally I could find a single reference to the eTSEC 86 erratum
("eTSEC receivers may not be properly initialized"), dated 08/2007, and
it says it was fixed in MPC8548 silicon version 2.1.

On the other hand it consumes 90 lines of code (10%) of the tsec driver.
It would be nice if we could just remove it, I am not sure if anyone
would even notice.

Priyanka?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > clear by using true instead of 1.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> >
> >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> >
> >               return 0;
> >       }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH 2/3] net: fec_mxc: Declare 'promisc' as bool

[Ramon Fried]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:45PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > priv->promisc is used as the parameter of the set_promisc() call
> > which accepts a bool type instead of char.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  drivers/net/fec_mxc.h | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> > index 62b55ef395..133f535917 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mxc.h
> > @@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ struct fec_priv {
> >       struct clk clk_ref;
> >       struct clk clk_ptp;
> >       u32 clk_rate;
> > -     char promisc;
> > +     bool promisc;
> >  };
> >
> >  /**
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: tsec: Make redundant_init() static

[Ramon Fried]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 8:50 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> redundant_init() is only called in the tsec driver. Make it static.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> ---
>
>  drivers/net/tsec.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c
> index ee820aae15..b433e411bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c
> @@ -432,7 +432,7 @@ static void tsec_halt(struct udevice *dev)
>   * of the eTSEC port initialization sequence,
>   * the eTSEC Rx logic may not be properly initialized.
>   */
> -void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
> +static void redundant_init(struct tsec_private *priv)
>  {
>         struct tsec __iomem *regs = priv->regs;
>         uint t, count = 0;
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Bin Meng]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > >
> > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > >
> > >               return 0;
> > >       }
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>

Ping for apply?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > >
> > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > >
> > > >               return 0;
> > > >       }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
>
> Ping for apply?
I'll get to the patches today.
thanks for waking me up :)

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > >
> > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > >
> > > > >               return 0;
> > > > >       }
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
> >
> > Ping for apply?
> I'll get to the patches today.
> thanks for waking me up :)

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > > >
> > > > > >               return 0;
> > > > > >       }
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Ping for apply?
> > I'll get to the patches today.
> > thanks for waking me up :)

Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean
<vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >               return 0;
> > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Ping for apply?
> > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > thanks for waking me up :)
>
> Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
would need to rebase.
simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Bin Meng]

Hi Ramon,

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 9:31 PM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean
> <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > > Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >               return 0;
> > > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Ping for apply?
> > > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > > thanks for waking me up :)
> >
> > Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
> It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
> in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
> would need to rebase.
> simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
> is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.

Please let me know which branch I should rebase on, so that I can send v2.

Regards,
Bin

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 4:37 PM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ramon,
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 9:31 PM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29 PM Vladimir Oltean
> > <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:41:02PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > > > Bin, patches don't apply cleanly.  can you rebase ?
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:53 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 5:19 AM Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 4:32 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:50:44PM +0800, Bin Meng wrote:
> > > > > > > > > set_promisc() call accepts the parameter of a bool type. Make it
> > > > > > > > > clear by using true instead of 1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  net/dsa-uclass.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/dsa-uclass.c b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > > index 694664d81b..dcefec03f4 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/net/dsa-uclass.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@ static int dsa_port_probe(struct udevice *pdev)
> > > > > > > > >               struct eth_ops *eth_ops = eth_get_ops(master);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >               if (eth_ops->set_promisc)
> > > > > > > > > -                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, 1);
> > > > > > > > > +                     eth_ops->set_promisc(master, true);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >               return 0;
> > > > > > > > >       }
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 2.25.1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Ramon Fried <rfried.dev@gmail.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ping for apply?
> > > > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > > > thanks for waking me up :)
> > >
> > > Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
> > It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
> > in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
> > would need to rebase.
> > simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
> > is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
>
> Please let me know which branch I should rebase on, so that I can send v2.
>
> Regards,
> Bin
u-boot-net/next

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 04:31:48PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > > > > Ping for apply?
> > > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > > thanks for waking me up :)
> >
> > Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
> It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
> in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
> would need to rebase.
> simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
> is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.

I know, I was reacting to the 'thanks for waking me up' part.
Honestly I don't see the point of going through some patches, marking
them as reviewed, then waiting for 2 more weeks to apply them (or even
more in other cases). It slows down the process for a reason that I
can't see.

Maybe the thinking is along the lines of "I won't apply patches that
haven't marinated for long enough". But my patches (the ones conflicting
with Bin's) still had build warnings even after marinating for close to
one month (fixes for which I've sent just now). During that time, I had
also piled up a few non-critical fixes to those patches, but I wasn't
going to modify the patch set already in flight anyway, for fear of
waiting again for who knows how long. Incremental fixups are fine and
surely are a valid way of doing development too, so that argument kinda
falls off the table. What's left?

Re: [PATCH 1/3] net: dsa: Use true instead of 1 in the set_promisc() call

[Ramon Fried]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:04 AM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 04:31:48PM +0300, Ramon Fried wrote:
> > > > > > Ping for apply?
> > > > > I'll get to the patches today.
> > > > > thanks for waking me up :)
> > >
> > > Why don't you apply patches immediately after reviewing them?
> > It wouldn't make a difference. you were all working on the same file
> > in code, If I would have applied bin's patches before yours, then you
> > would need to rebase.
> > simple as that. Also the time when I'm applying and when I'm reviewing
> > is also meaningless because this problem would occur anyway.
>
> I know, I was reacting to the 'thanks for waking me up' part.
> Honestly I don't see the point of going through some patches, marking
> them as reviewed, then waiting for 2 more weeks to apply them (or even
> more in other cases). It slows down the process for a reason that I
> can't see.
>
> Maybe the thinking is along the lines of "I won't apply patches that
> haven't marinated for long enough". But my patches (the ones conflicting
> with Bin's) still had build warnings even after marinating for close to
> one month (fixes for which I've sent just now). During that time, I had
> also piled up a few non-critical fixes to those patches, but I wasn't
> going to modify the patch set already in flight anyway, for fear of
> waiting again for who knows how long. Incremental fixups are fine and
> surely are a valid way of doing development too, so that argument kinda
> falls off the table. What's left?
I do let patches marinate for a while, to give other people the
opportunity to review, test and comment.
After a few weeks, when the merge window is open, I pick-up all the
patches and apply them in turn.
That's my process, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

If you have a fix to a patch you already got reviewed-by, send the
patch again, and add reviewed-by.
That's the way it should work.