Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[David Miller]

From: Francois Romieu 
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:53:25 +0100

> Been there. Such requests are usually left unanswered. :o(

Due to this patch submitters continued anti-social and anti-community
behavior, I have been completely ignoring their patches.

I will continue to mark all of their patch submissions as "REJECTED"
in patchwork until they start to behave like proper community members
and actually respond properly and act upon to the feedback they are
given.

You should also feel free to ignore their work as well, your time is
valuable, don't waste it on someone who ignores everyone's feedback.

Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[Phil Sutter]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Phil Sutter  :
> [...]
> > Your patch submissions are getting better, also good to see you're
> > finally using git-send-email. A few things need to be corrected though:
> > 
> 
> #define BMCR_RESV   0x003f  /* Unused...   */
> #define BMCR_SPEED1000  0x0040  /* MSB of Speed (1000) */
> #define BMCR_CTST   0x0080  /* Collision test  */
> #define BMCR_FULLDPLX   0x0100  /* Full duplex */
> #define BMCR_ANRESTART  0x0200  /* Auto negotiation restart*/
> #define BMCR_ISOLATE0x0400  /* Isolate data paths from MII */
> #define BMCR_PDOWN  0x0800  /* Enable low power state  */
> #define BMCR_ANENABLE   0x1000  /* Enable auto negotiation */
> #define BMCR_SPEED100   0x2000  /* Select 100Mbps  */
> #define BMCR_LOOPBACK   0x4000  /* TXD loopback bits   */
> 
> BMCR_SPEED100 apart, *all* these bits are now set.
> 
> It does not make much sense.

I presumed that already, but didn't care to check myself so instead
ignored the actual code change. Thanks for pointing out the futility of
the whole thing. :)

> > Also detailed instructions on how to trigger the problem you are fixing
> > for would be good. In detail: Which specific hardware was used, in which
> > situation did the problem occur, how did it behave in that situation and
> > what was the expected behaviour?
> 
> Been there. Such requests are usually left unanswered. :o(

That's my impression from following the (somewhat amusing) former
threads, too. I was merely impressed by the sheer quality of this patch
in comparison to previous ones. Speaking of which, the presented
tenacity certainly earns some respect.

Cheers, Phil

Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[Francois Romieu]

Phil Sutter  :
[...]
> Your patch submissions are getting better, also good to see you're
> finally using git-send-email. A few things need to be corrected though:
> 

#define BMCR_RESV   0x003f  /* Unused...   */
#define BMCR_SPEED1000  0x0040  /* MSB of Speed (1000) */
#define BMCR_CTST   0x0080  /* Collision test  */
#define BMCR_FULLDPLX   0x0100  /* Full duplex */
#define BMCR_ANRESTART  0x0200  /* Auto negotiation restart*/
#define BMCR_ISOLATE0x0400  /* Isolate data paths from MII */
#define BMCR_PDOWN  0x0800  /* Enable low power state  */
#define BMCR_ANENABLE   0x1000  /* Enable auto negotiation */
#define BMCR_SPEED100   0x2000  /* Select 100Mbps  */
#define BMCR_LOOPBACK   0x4000  /* TXD loopback bits   */

BMCR_SPEED100 apart, *all* these bits are now set.

It does not make much sense.

> Also detailed instructions on how to trigger the problem you are fixing
> for would be good. In detail: Which specific hardware was used, in which
> situation did the problem occur, how did it behave in that situation and
> what was the expected behaviour?

Been there. Such requests are usually left unanswered. :o(

Btw, this stuff targets 3.16 (...) and net-next is still closed.

-- 
Ueimor

Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[Corcodel Marian]

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:33:02 +0100
Phil Sutter  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Your patch submissions are getting better, also good to see you're
> finally using git-send-email. A few things need to be corrected
> though:
> 
> Subject line:
> - The 'vNN' part in brackets is supposed to be the reroll-count (see
>   'git format-patch -h' for details), not kernel version. You're
>   supposed to submit your patches for either net or net-next, not a
>   specific kernel version like 3.16.
> - Missing space after the closing bracket.
> - Extra space after 'r8169:'.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Corcodel Marian wrote:
> >  This patch correct value on MII_BMCR register ald value 0
> >  have target on reserved register first 2 bytes from MII_BMCR
> >  speed 10 is flipped value on BMCR_SPEED100
> 
> This is very hard to understand. I *guess* you want to say one should
> not write 0 to MII_BMCR since it overwrites reserved bits, but it's
> really not clear. Don't you know someone who can properly translate
> from Romanian to English?
> 
> Also detailed instructions on how to trigger the problem you are
> fixing for would be good. In detail: Which specific hardware was
> used, in which situation did the problem occur, how did it behave in
> that situation and what was the expected behaviour?
> 
> Cheers, Phil

> This is very hard to understand. I *guess* you want to say one should
> not write 0 to MII_BMCR since it overwrites reserved bits, but it's
> really not clear. Don't you know someone who can properly translate
> from Romanian to English?
>Yes this it.

Re: [PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[Phil Sutter]

Hi,

Your patch submissions are getting better, also good to see you're
finally using git-send-email. A few things need to be corrected though:

Subject line:
- The 'vNN' part in brackets is supposed to be the reroll-count (see
  'git format-patch -h' for details), not kernel version. You're
  supposed to submit your patches for either net or net-next, not a
  specific kernel version like 3.16.
- Missing space after the closing bracket.
- Extra space after 'r8169:'.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Corcodel Marian wrote:
>  This patch correct value on MII_BMCR register ald value 0
>  have target on reserved register first 2 bytes from MII_BMCR
>  speed 10 is flipped value on BMCR_SPEED100

This is very hard to understand. I *guess* you want to say one should
not write 0 to MII_BMCR since it overwrites reserved bits, but it's
really not clear. Don't you know someone who can properly translate from
Romanian to English?

Also detailed instructions on how to trigger the problem you are fixing
for would be good. In detail: Which specific hardware was used, in which
situation did the problem occur, how did it behave in that situation and
what was the expected behaviour?

Cheers, Phil

[PATCH net-next v3.16]r8169: Correct value from speed 10 on MII_BMCR

[Corcodel Marian]

 This patch correct value on MII_BMCR register ald value 0
 have target on reserved register first 2 bytes from MII_BMCR
 speed 10 is flipped value on BMCR_SPEED100

Signed-off-by: Corcodel Marian 
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c 
b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
index a450656..77c5efb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/realtek/r8169.c
@@ -1707,7 +1707,7 @@ static int rtl8169_set_speed_xmii(struct net_device *dev,
giga_ctrl = 0;
 
if (speed == SPEED_10)
-   bmcr = 0;
+   bmcr = ~BMCR_SPEED100;
else if (speed == SPEED_100)
bmcr = BMCR_SPEED100;
else
-- 
2.1.4