Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] cxgb4: Allow for backward compatibility with new VPD scheme.

From: Vipul Pandya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:23:12 +0530

On 11-03-2013 12:00, David Miller wrote:
> From: Vipul Pandya <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:21:51 +0530
> 
>>
>>
>> On 08-03-2013 23:14, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Vipul Pandya <[email-masked]>
>>> Date: Fri,  8 Mar 2013 19:05:29 +0530
>>>
>>>> From: Santosh Rastapur <[email-masked]>
>>>>
>>>> New scheme calls for 3rd party VPD at offset 0x0 and Chelsio VPD at offset
>>>> 0x400 of the function.  If no 3rd party VPD is present, then a copy of
>>>> Chelsio's VPD will be at offset 0x0 to keep in line with PCI spec which
>>>> requires the VPD to be present at offset 0x0.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Rastapur <[email-masked]>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vipul Pandya <[email-masked]>
>>>
>>> Isn't this a fix which is better targetted at 'net' than 'net-next'?
>>>
>>
>> We have very soon new patch series coming up for net-next. This patch
>> requires for that patch series to work correctly. So, we would like to
>> get this merge in net-next tree.
> 
> But you can achieve that by asking me to apply this to 'net' and then
> when the patch series that depends upon it is posted, you tell me about
> this dependency.
> 
Ok. I was not aware of this. However there can be a merge conflict at
the time of merging 'net' and 'net-next' tree if this patch gets applied
in 'net' tree and our new patch series gets applied in 'net-next'. To
avoid it we recommended the same. The merge conflict wont be a major and
if it is alright to resolve it we can apply this patch to 'net' tree.

Thanks,
Vipul