> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org] > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 9:50 AM > To: Limonciello, Mario <mario_limoncie...@dell.com> > Cc: hayesw...@realtek.com; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; > netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; pali.ro...@gmail.com; > anthony.w...@canonical.com > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] r8152: Add support for setting pass through MAC > address on RTL8153-AD > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 02:43:37PM +0000, mario_limoncie...@dell.com > wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org] > > > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 9:40 AM > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <mario_limoncie...@dell.com> > > > Cc: hayesw...@realtek.com; LKML <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>; > Netdev > > > <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Linux USB <linux-...@vger.kernel.org>; > > > pali.ro...@gmail.com; anthony.w...@canonical.com > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] r8152: Add support for setting pass through MAC > > > address on RTL8153-AD > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:15:20AM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > > > > Since this is a Realtek feature, I feel this shouldn't be moved into a > platform > > > > MAC address lookup. The code should only be run when the correct > > > Realtek device > > > > is plugged in. > > > > > > > > Changes from v2: > > > > * Only apply to RTL8153-AD w/ eFuse pass through mac address pass > thru > > > > bit set. > > > > * Drop matching DMI information on Dell. Although this is > implemented > > > on > > > > Dell, this is a Realtek feature that may may be implemented on other > > > > OEMs as well. > > > > * Test that pass through MAC address is valid, fall back to HW address > > > > if > > > > invalid. > > > > * Don't track status of which device has MAC pass through activated. > > > > - Expected experience is that if two docks (RTL8153-AD's w/ mac pass > thru > > > > bit set) were plugged in both should have MAC pass through > activated. > > > > > > cover letters for single-patch submissions is overkill and confusing, > > > please don't. > > > > I was trying to convey differences between versions of this patch, I'll > > avoid > > that in the future and let the audience find them themselves. > > No, put them in the patch itself, under the --- line, like is documented > to do so. Don't make people "find them themselves", if you do that, > your patch will just be ignored. > > greg k-h
Sorry I was not aware of that. I'll do that in the next patch.
