linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: misc: add USB251xB/xBi Hi-Speed Hub Controller Driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170203095730.GA29502@kroah.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:57:30 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] usb: misc: add USB251xB/xBi Hi-Speed Hub Controller
 Driver

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On 02/03/2017 10:03 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:44:29PM +0100, Richard Leitner wrote:
> >> This patch adds a driver for configuration of the Microchip USB251xB/xBi
> >> USB 2.0 hub controller series with USB 2.0 upstream connectivity, SMBus
> >> configuration interface and two to four USB 2.0 downstream ports.
> >>
> >> Furthermore add myself as a maintainer for this driver.
> >>
> >> The datasheet can be found at the manufacturers website, see [1]. All
> >> device-tree exposed configuration features have been tested on a i.MX6
> >> platform with a USB2512B hub.
> >>
> >> [1] http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/00001692C.pdf
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Richard Leitner <richard.leitner@...data.com>
> > 
> > What is "RFC" about this?  If you don't think it's ready to be merged,
> > I'll agree with that and so I've deleted it from my review queue :)
> 
> As it's my first patch which adds a new driver I thought (after reading
> [1]) a "RFC" would be appropriate. Isn't it?
> 
> As stated in the commit message we tested it internally on an i.MX6
> platform. Therefore, from my/our point of view, it works as expected and
> should be ready to be merged (otherwise I wouldn't have submitted it to
> the ML ;-) ).
> 
> So how should I proceed here? Re-send it without "RFC"? Wait for some
> feedback? Something completely different?

resend it without the RFC and I'll be glad to review it for inclusion.

thanks,

greg k-h