[PATCH v2] phy: cadence: Sierra: Add support for skipping configuration

[Aswath Govindraju]

Hi Vinod,

On 04/02/22 11:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 03-02-22, 11:25, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On 03/02/22 5:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 02-02-22, 20:14, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>> Hi Vinod,
>>>>
>>>> On 02/02/22 7:53 pm, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>>> On 28-01-22, 12:56, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>>>> In some cases, a single SerDes instance can be shared between two different
>>>>>> processors, each using a separate link. In these cases, the SerDes
>>>>>> configuration is done in an earlier boot stage. Therefore, add support to
>>>>>> skip reconfiguring, if it is was already configured beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>> This fails to apply, pls rebase and resend
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On rebasing, I am seeing no difference in the patch and I am able to
>>>> apply it on top of linux-next/master commit 6abab1b81b65. May I know if
>>>> there is any other branch that I would need to rebase this patch on top of?
>>>
>>> It should be based on phy-next which is at
>>> 1f1b0c105b19ac0d90975e2569040da1216489b7 now
>>>
>>
>> I have posted a respin of this patch after rebasing it on top of
>> phy-next. One aspect that is not clear to me is, phy-next branch does
>> not have the following commit which is present in linux-next master,
>>
>> 29afbd769ca3 phy: cadence: Sierra: fix error handling bugs in probe()
> 
> This is in fixes
>>
>> When the respin of this patch(v3) is merged with linux-next/master
>> wouldn't it cause merge-conflicts?
>>
>> May I know how would this be handled?
> 
> If need arises (we have a dependency) I would merge fixes into next and
> then apply patches. Cover letter of the patches should mention that
> 

Thank you for the clarification. I will make note of mentioning this
from next time. So, just to confirm, if the fixes are merged then v2 of
this patch series will apply cleanly.

Thanks,
Aswath