Re: [PATCH 2/2] ethernet: igb: e1000_phy: Check for ops.force_speed_duplex existence

From: Paul Menzel
Date: Tue Nov 03 2020 - 02:35:16 EST


Dear Jakub,


Am 03.11.20 um 01:19 schrieb Jakub Kicinski:
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:13:07 +0100 Paul Menzel wrote:
From: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The ops field might no be defined, so add a check.

This change should be first, otherwise AFAIU if someone builds the
kernel in between the commits (e.g. for bisection) it will crash.

Patch `[PATCH 1/2] ethernet: igb: Support PHY BCM5461S` has

phy->ops.force_speed_duplex = igb_phy_force_speed_duplex_82580;

so the ordering does not matter. I do not know, if Jeffrey can comment, but probably the check was just adding during development. Maybe an assert should be added instead?

The patch is taken from Open Network Linux (ONL), and it was added there
as part of the patch

packages/base/any/kernels/3.16+deb8/patches/driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461X-phy.patch

in ONL commit f32316c63c (Support the BCM54616 and BCM5461S.) [1]. Part
of this commit was already upstreamed in Linux commit eeb0149660 (igb:
support BCM54616 PHY) in 2017.

I applied the forward-ported

packages/base/any/kernels/5.4-lts/patches/0002-driver-support-intel-igb-bcm5461S-phy.patch

added in ONL commit 5ace6bcdb3 (Add 5.4 LTS kernel build.) [2].

[1]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/f32316c63ce3a64de125b7429115c6d45e942bd1
[2]: https://github.com/opencomputeproject/OpenNetworkLinux/commit/5ace6bcdb37cb8065dcd1d4404b3dcb6424f6331

No need to put this in every commit message.

We preserve the cover letter in tree as a merge commit message, so
explaining things once in the cover letter is sufficient.

I remember, but still find it confusing. If I look at a commit with `git show …`, I normally do not think of also looking at a possible cover letter as not many subsystems/projects do it, and I assume a commit is self-contained.

Could you share your development process

Cc: Jeffrey Townsend <jeffrey.townsend@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Jefferey will need to provide a sign-off as the author.

According to *Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1* [3], it’s my understanding, that it is *not* required. The items (a), (b), and (c) are connected by an *or*.

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or

Cc: John W Linville <linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Kind regards,

Paul


[3]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.9/process/submitting-patches.html#sign-your-work-the-developer-s-certificate-of-origin