arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any
two port ethernet controller.
Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller.
So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on
such SoCs.
Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com>
---
arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index 11fa4aa40094..750343564f41 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ CONFIG_NET_CLS_FLOWER=m
CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT=y
CONFIG_NET_ACT_GACT=m
CONFIG_NET_ACT_MIRRED=m
+CONFIG_HSR=m
CONFIG_NET_ACT_GATE=m
CONFIG_QRTR_SMD=m
CONFIG_QRTR_TUN=m
--
2.17.1Hi all, Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this merged? Thanks & Regards, Meghana Malladi. On 4/19/2024 11:30 AM, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote: > HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any > two port ethernet controller. > > Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller. > So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on > such SoCs. > > Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > index 11fa4aa40094..750343564f41 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ CONFIG_NET_CLS_FLOWER=m > CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT=y > CONFIG_NET_ACT_GACT=m > CONFIG_NET_ACT_MIRRED=m > +CONFIG_HSR=m > CONFIG_NET_ACT_GATE=m > CONFIG_QRTR_SMD=m > CONFIG_QRTR_TUN=m
Hi all, Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this merged? Thanks & Regards, Meghana Malladi. On 4/19/2024 11:30 AM, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote: > HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any > two port ethernet controller. > > Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller. > So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on > such SoCs. > > Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com> > --- > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > index 11fa4aa40094..750343564f41 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ CONFIG_NET_CLS_FLOWER=m > CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT=y > CONFIG_NET_ACT_GACT=m > CONFIG_NET_ACT_MIRRED=m > +CONFIG_HSR=m > CONFIG_NET_ACT_GATE=m > CONFIG_QRTR_SMD=m > CONFIG_QRTR_TUN=m
On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this > merged? I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2/26/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in > case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why > this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the > tip, anything > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source > of this email and know the content is safe. > Report Suspicious > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! > updgnZav1ue7gKXOnHOpH5hg8gLmw9Osqsqh- > KTLRTnBEurV_VetrG7mzU898vB_5xFrYgbRkkuuFMBobM-uhFAmUgccRSk$> > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. >> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing >> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this >> merged? > > I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would > apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I > am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Hello Arnd/Krzysztof, Thank you for the replies :) Was having ambiguity since this is not TI specific change. Wanted to confirm before re-posting. Will post v2 patch including TI platform maintainers. Regards, Meghana
On 26/02/2025 11:44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > > On 2/26/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >> case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why >> this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the >> tip, anything >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >> of this email and know the content is safe. >> Report Suspicious >> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >> updgnZav1ue7gKXOnHOpH5hg8gLmw9Osqsqh- >> KTLRTnBEurV_VetrG7mzU898vB_5xFrYgbRkkuuFMBobM-uhFAmUgccRSk$> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >> >> On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. BTW, Arnd when responded with Ack described the process. >>> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing >>> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this >>> merged? >> >> I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would >> apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I >> am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > Hello Arnd/Krzysztof, > > Thank you for the replies :) > Was having ambiguity since this is not TI specific change. Wanted to > confirm before re-posting. Will post v2 patch including TI platform > maintainers. It is not TI specific? Then which upstream boards benefit from this if not TI? Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, On 2/26/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/02/2025 11: 44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > > On 2/26/2025 1: 35 > PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana > wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >> case you are receiving this email > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source > of this email and know the content is safe. > Report Suspicious > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! > updq3RaPV007wGXFFrPD30z5a3GGYjpJweyhUcIfUTTaUs-8q0QpC4Yk9azBiFp7cBAf2Knk6fnVs4Fs-zRjTMEn8kmpiGo$> > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > On 26/02/2025 11:44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >> >> >> On 2/26/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >>> case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why >>> this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the >>> tip, anything >>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >>> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >>> of this email and know the content is safe. >>> Report Suspicious >>> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >>> updgnZav1ue7gKXOnHOpH5hg8gLmw9Osqsqh- >>> KTLRTnBEurV_VetrG7mzU898vB_5xFrYgbRkkuuFMBobM-uhFAmUgccRSk$> >>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >>> >>> On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. > > BTW, Arnd when responded with Ack described the process. > Yes, I wanted to re-confirm before posting it again (just in case). >>>> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing >>>> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this >>>> merged? >>> >>> I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would >>> apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I >>> am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >> >> Hello Arnd/Krzysztof, >> >> Thank you for the replies :) >> Was having ambiguity since this is not TI specific change. Wanted to >> confirm before re-posting. Will post v2 patch including TI platform >> maintainers. > > It is not TI specific? Then which upstream boards benefit from this if > not TI? > This change enables generic HSR protocol support in the kernel which is required for HSR driver support in TI boards. When I said "not TI specific" - I meant this change is not internal to TI driver. Hope this clarifies the miscommunication from my earlier mail. Best Regards, Meghana > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 26/02/2025 12:54, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 2/26/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 11: 44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > > On 2/26/2025 1: 35 >> PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana >> wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >> case you are receiving this email >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >> of this email and know the content is safe. >> Report Suspicious >> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >> updq3RaPV007wGXFFrPD30z5a3GGYjpJweyhUcIfUTTaUs-8q0QpC4Yk9azBiFp7cBAf2Knk6fnVs4Fs-zRjTMEn8kmpiGo$> >> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >> >> On 26/02/2025 11:44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/26/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >>>> case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why >>>> this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the >>>> tip, anything >>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >>>> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >>>> of this email and know the content is safe. >>>> Report Suspicious >>>> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >>>> updgnZav1ue7gKXOnHOpH5hg8gLmw9Osqsqh- >>>> KTLRTnBEurV_VetrG7mzU898vB_5xFrYgbRkkuuFMBobM-uhFAmUgccRSk$> >>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >>>> >>>> On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. >> >> BTW, Arnd when responded with Ack described the process. >> > > Yes, I wanted to re-confirm before posting it again (just in case). > >>>>> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing >>>>> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this >>>>> merged? >>>> >>>> I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would >>>> apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I >>>> am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Krzysztof >>>> >>> >>> Hello Arnd/Krzysztof, >>> >>> Thank you for the replies :) >>> Was having ambiguity since this is not TI specific change. Wanted to >>> confirm before re-posting. Will post v2 patch including TI platform >>> maintainers. >> >> It is not TI specific? Then which upstream boards benefit from this if >> not TI? >> > > This change enables generic HSR protocol support in the kernel which is > required for HSR driver support in TI boards. When I said "not TI > specific" - I meant this change is not internal to TI driver. Hope this > clarifies the miscommunication from my earlier mail. Yes, sure, but this defconfig change benefits and is sent for certain TI upstream boards, so it is TI upstream maintainers field. It still fits the "Submitting Patches for Given SoC" in SoC maintainer profile. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2/26/2025 5:36 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/02/2025 12: 54, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On > 2/26/2025 4: 18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 11: 44, > Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > > On 2/26/2025 1: 35 >> PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart > This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source > of this email and know the content is safe. > Report Suspicious > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! > updgPX1FFo0b4GXEXdPDfwTBSgIATJM2ZirviWBzo9UAByA7dipk7rbevgVn7EQb6- > DBhdHMpW7WhdxsrgH8RrHp6HnyASM$> > ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd > > On 26/02/2025 12:54, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On 2/26/2025 4:18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 26/02/2025 11: 44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > > > On 2/26/2025 1: 35 >>> PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana >>> wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >> case you are receiving this email >>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >>> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >>> of this email and know the content is safe. >>> Report Suspicious >>> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >>> updq3RaPV007wGXFFrPD30z5a3GGYjpJweyhUcIfUTTaUs-8q0QpC4Yk9azBiFp7cBAf2Knk6fnVs4Fs-zRjTMEn8kmpiGo$> >>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >>> >>> On 26/02/2025 11:44, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/26/2025 1:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 26/02/2025 07: 18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies in >>>>> case you are receiving this email for the second time. > Any reason why >>>>> this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing > this to the >>>>> tip, anything >>>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart >>>>> This message was sent from outside of Texas Instruments. >>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the source >>>>> of this email and know the content is safe. >>>>> Report Suspicious >>>>> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/G3vK! >>>>> updgnZav1ue7gKXOnHOpH5hg8gLmw9Osqsqh- >>>>> KTLRTnBEurV_VetrG7mzU898vB_5xFrYgbRkkuuFMBobM-uhFAmUgccRSk$> >>>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd >>>>> >>>>> On 26/02/2025 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time. >>> >>> BTW, Arnd when responded with Ack described the process. >>> >> >> Yes, I wanted to re-confirm before posting it again (just in case). >> >>>>>> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing >>>>>> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this >>>>>> merged? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think you sent it to your platform maintainers, so no one would >>>>> apply it. Usually people ignore emails they did not receive, although I >>>>> am here an exception tracking missing-DT-patchwork things... :) >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Arnd/Krzysztof, >>>> >>>> Thank you for the replies :) >>>> Was having ambiguity since this is not TI specific change. Wanted to >>>> confirm before re-posting. Will post v2 patch including TI platform >>>> maintainers. >>> >>> It is not TI specific? Then which upstream boards benefit from this if >>> not TI? >>> >> >> This change enables generic HSR protocol support in the kernel which is >> required for HSR driver support in TI boards. When I said "not TI >> specific" - I meant this change is not internal to TI driver. Hope this >> clarifies the miscommunication from my earlier mail. > > Yes, sure, but this defconfig change benefits and is sent for certain TI > upstream boards, so it is TI upstream maintainers field. It still fits > the "Submitting Patches for Given SoC" in SoC maintainer profile. > Okay, I got your point now. So as long as this defconfig benefits TI SoCs, it should be sent with maintainer profile. I will keep that in mind for future patches as well. Thanks for clarifying this. Best Regards, Meghana > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, at 06:43, Malladi, Meghana wrote:
> On 2/26/2025 5:36 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/02/2025 12: 54, Malladi, Meghana wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On
>> 2/26/2025 4: 18 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 26/02/2025 11: 44,
>>
>> Yes, sure, but this defconfig change benefits and is sent for certain TI
>> upstream boards, so it is TI upstream maintainers field. It still fits
>> the "Submitting Patches for Given SoC" in SoC maintainer profile.
>>
>
> Okay, I got your point now. So as long as this defconfig benefits TI
> SoCs, it should be sent with maintainer profile. I will keep that in
> mind for future patches as well. Thanks for clarifying this.
It's mainly for practical reasons: the patches I put into the soc
tree usually come from platform maintainers that I'm already working
with. They understand the process and I generally trust their
judgement of what should go into the kernel or not.
Individual contributors can still send patches to soc@lists.linux.dev
(formerly soc@kernel.org) and I will usually end up merging them, but
that means that the patch itself needs a more elaborate justification
for why it should be merged, and I end up spending a bit more time on
figuring out if I should take it.
Arnd
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 07:18, Malladi, Meghana wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies in case you are receiving this email for the second time.
> Any reason why this patch hasn't been merged yet. Other than re-basing
> this to the tip, anything else which needs to be addressed to get this
> merged?
>
Someone needs to send it to soc@linux.dev so it makes it into patchwork,
ideally it should come from a platform maintainer that needs it to
be enabled.
Arnd
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, at 08:00, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote:
> HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any
> two port ethernet controller.
>
> Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller.
> So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on
> such SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com>
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
The normal way this gets picked up into mainline is that you
send it to the K3 platform maintainers (added to Cc) and they
send me a pull request or forward the patch to soc@kernel.org.
Arnd
Arnd, On 4/19/24 11:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, at 08:00, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote: >> HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any >> two port ethernet controller. >> >> Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller. >> So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on >> such SoCs. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com> > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > The normal way this gets picked up into mainline is that you > send it to the K3 platform maintainers (added to Cc) and they > send me a pull request or forward the patch to soc@kernel.org. > I usually do that for TI specific patches. This one seemed like a generic one as HSR protocol can be run on any multi port ethernet controller. So I wasn't sure about including TI maintainers. But no harm in Cc'ing them. I will follow this advice for future patches. > Arnd -- Regards, Ravi
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, at 08:25, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote:
> On 4/19/24 11:32 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, at 08:00, Ravi Gunasekaran wrote:
>>> HSR is a redundancy protocol that can be realized with any
>>> two port ethernet controller.
>>>
>>> Many of TI's K3 SoCs support multi port ethernet controller.
>>> So enable HSR driver inorder to support this protocol on
>>> such SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Gunasekaran <r-gunasekaran@ti.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>
>> The normal way this gets picked up into mainline is that you
>> send it to the K3 platform maintainers (added to Cc) and they
>> send me a pull request or forward the patch to soc@kernel.org.
>>
>
> I usually do that for TI specific patches. This one seemed like a
> generic one as HSR protocol can be run on any multi port ethernet
> controller. So I wasn't sure about including TI maintainers.
>
> But no harm in Cc'ing them. I will follow this advice for future
> patches.
Ah, I think I misread this as being much more hardware specific.
In a case like this, going through either a platform maintainer
or sending the patch directly to soc@kernel.org (with the usual
Ccs) is equally fine.
Arnd
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.