[PATCH] net: stmmac: add flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a

[Jakub Kicinski]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:27:03 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 10:20 -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:23:27 +0100 Antonio Borneo wrote:  
> > > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 15:15 +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:  
> > > > On 10.10.19 00:26, Jakub Kicinski wrote:    
> > > > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 17:43:06 +0200, Antonio Borneo wrote:    
> > > > > > All the registers and the functionalities used in the callback
> > > > > > dwmac5_flex_pps_config() are common between dwmac 4.10a [1] and
> > > > > > 5.00a [2].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Reuse the same callback for dwmac 4.10a too.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tested on STM32MP15x, based on dwmac 4.10a.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > [1] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 4.10a October 2014
> > > > > > [2] DWC Ethernet QoS Databook 5.00a September 2017
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonio Borneo <antonio.borneo at st.com>    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Applied to net-next.    
> > > > 
> > > > This patch seems to have been fuzzily applied at the wrong location.
> > > > The diff describes extension of dwmac 4.10a and so does the @@ line:
> > > > 
> > > >   @@ -864,6 +864,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac410_ops = {
> > > > 
> > > > The patch was applied mainline as 757926247836 ("net: stmmac: add
> > > > flexible PPS to dwmac 4.10a"), but it extends dwmac4_ops instead:
> > > > 
> > > >   @@ -938,6 +938,7 @@ const struct stmmac_ops dwmac4_ops = {
> > > > 
> > > > I don't know if dwmac4 actually supports FlexPPS, so I think it's
> > > > better to be on the safe side and revert 757926247836 and add the
> > > > change for the correct variant.    
> > > 
> > > Agree,
> > > the patch get applied to the wrong place!  
> > 
> > :-o
> > 
> > This happens sometimes with stable backports but I've never seen it
> > happen working on "current" branches.
> > 
> > Sorry about that!
> > 
> > Would you mind sending the appropriate patches? I can do the revert if
> > you prefer, but since you need to send the fix anyway..  
> 
> You mean sending two patches one for revert and one to re-apply the code?
> Or a single patch for the fix?

Either way is fine by me. If I was doing it - I'd probably send just one
patch, but if you prefer to revert first - nothing wrong with that.