On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 02:10:01PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 07:35:19AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 10:47:16AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > Currently, the phy subsystem uses ENOSYS for dummy blob functions, > > > it does not reflect the function state correctly. As kernel already > > > has EOPNOTSUPP for disabled blob function, replace ENOSYS with > > > EOPNOTSUPP for a clear return value. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > include/linux/phy/phy.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) > > > > Based on the other patches in this series, this patch now breaks the > > users, right? Shouldn't this all happen at once? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > It will break, and the change should happen at one. But I think > the affect should be limited as it only affect a special edge > case: build kernel with CONFIG_GENERIC_PHY disabled. So the > break should be limited. > > IIRC I was told to seperate the patch into small part so each > maintainer can take its own. Is it fine to squash these patches > into one in this a case?
You can't break bisection of the tree, so if it all has to happen in one commit, that's required. But really, why is this needed at all? Who will benefit from this change? thanks, greg k-h
