Greetings list,

This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.

Changes v1->v2:
- Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
  'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
  preventing this problem from happening again

Best,
Sam

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241003211720.1339468-1-CFSworks@gmail.com/T/

Sam Edwards (2):
  phy: usb: Fix missing elements in BCM4908 USB init array
  phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers

 drivers/phy/broadcom/phy-brcm-usb-init.c | 433 +++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 215 insertions(+), 218 deletions(-)

-- 
2.44.2

On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:41:29 -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
> This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
> the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.
> 
> Changes v1->v2:
> - Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
>   'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
>   preventing this problem from happening again
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[2/2] phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers
      commit: d3712b35f3c694cb932f87194caafc714109ea08

Best regards,
-- 
~Vinod

On 10/7/24 08:48, Vinod Koul wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:41:29 -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
>> This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
>> the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.
>>
>> Changes v1->v2:
>> - Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
>>    'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
>>    preventing this problem from happening again
>>
>> [...]
> 
> Applied, thanks!
> 
> [2/2] phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers
>        commit: d3712b35f3c694cb932f87194caafc714109ea08

I looked at your tree and both patches are applied in the "next" branch 
and the first one is also in the "fixes" branch, thanks Vinod!
-- 
Florian

On 07-10-24, 10:06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 10/7/24 08:48, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:41:29 -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
> > > This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
> > > the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.
> > > 
> > > Changes v1->v2:
> > > - Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
> > >    'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
> > >    preventing this problem from happening again
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > 
> > Applied, thanks!
> > 
> > [2/2] phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers
> >        commit: d3712b35f3c694cb932f87194caafc714109ea08
> 
> I looked at your tree and both patches are applied in the "next" branch and
> the first one is also in the "fixes" branch, thanks Vinod!

First one should go into fixes, whereas second on next (due to
dependency merged fixes into next)

-- 
~Vinod

On 10/7/24 11:12, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 07-10-24, 10:06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 10/7/24 08:48, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:41:29 -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
>>>> This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
>>>> the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.
>>>>
>>>> Changes v1->v2:
>>>> - Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
>>>>     'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
>>>>     preventing this problem from happening again
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>
>>> [2/2] phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers
>>>         commit: d3712b35f3c694cb932f87194caafc714109ea08
>>
>> I looked at your tree and both patches are applied in the "next" branch and
>> the first one is also in the "fixes" branch, thanks Vinod!
> 
> First one should go into fixes, whereas second on next (due to
> dependency merged fixes into next)

Yes that makes sense and is what I would have expected. I got worried 
about your git hook responding to this patch series and indicating that 
only the second patch had been applied, thus making me look into your 
tree to double check this had not been the case.
-- 
Florian