Re: [PATCH 5.10 000/149] 5.10.156-rc1 review

[YueHaibing]

On 2022/11/25 18:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022, at 11:25, YueHaibing wrote:
>> On 2022/11/25 18:02, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022, at 09:05, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 12:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 09:17:36PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Daniel bisected this reported problem and found the first bad commit,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>     net: broadcom: Fix BCMGENET Kconfig
>>>>>
>>>>> But that is in 5.10.155, 5.15.79, 6.0.9, and 6.1-rc5.  It is not new to
>>>>> this -rc release.
>>>>
>>>> It started from 5.10.155 and this is only seen on 5.10 and other
>>>> branches 5.15, 6.0 and mainline are looking good.
>>>
>>> I think the original patch is wrong and should be fixed upstream.
>>> The backported patch in question is a one-line Kconfig change doing
>>
>> It seems lts 5.10 do not contain commit e5f31552674e ("ethernet: fix 
>> PTP_1588_CLOCK dependencies"),
>> there is not PTP_1588_CLOCK_OPTIONAL option.
> 
> Ok, so there is a second problem then.
> 
> Greg, please just revert fbb4e8e6dc7b ("net: broadcom: Fix BCMGENET Kconfig")
> in stable/linux-5.10.y: it depends on e5f31552674e ("ethernet: fix
> PTP_1588_CLOCK dependencies"), which we probably don't want backported
> from 5.15 to 5.10.
> 
> YueHaibing, do you agree with my suggestion for improving the
> upstream 8d820bc9d12b ("net: broadcom: Fix BCMGENET Kconfig")
> commit? Can you send a follow-up fix, or should I?

Ok, I will take care this.

> 
>       Arnd
> .
>