On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:15:41 +0300 Lifshits, Vitaly wrote: > Thank you for this patch and this observation. > I think that you found a real misbehaviour in the original patch. > However, I still think that forcing SMBUS functionality shouldn't be > part of the ULP enabling flow, since they are two independent > configurations. > > I will soon submit a patch where I wrap forcing SMBUS in e1000_shutdown > with an if that checks if the FWSM_FW_VALID bit it set.
Why are you submitting a patch instead of asking the author to change theirs? This is not how code reviews work.
