linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivers: spi: core: Add optional stall delay between cs

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: <138d96e8af0f1c873046b7257c6c40a3d4b9d95e.camel@analog.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:37:30 +0000
From:   "Ardelean, Alexandru" <alexandru.Ardelean@...log.com>
To:     "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
        "jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk" <jic23@...23.retrosnub.co.uk>
CC:     "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] drivers: spi: core: Add optional stall delay
 between cs_change transfers

On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 15:12 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 07:34:38PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:13:25 +0300
> > Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@...log.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Some devices like the ADIS16460 IMU require a stall period between
> > > transfers, i.e. between when the CS is de-asserted and re-asserted. The
> > > default value of 10us is not enough. This change makes the delay
> > > configurable for when the next CS change goes active.
> 
> This looks like cs_change_delay.
> 
> As documented in SubmittingPatches please send patches to the 
> maintainers for the code you would like to change.  The normal kernel
> workflow is that people apply patches from their inboxes, if they aren't
> copied they are likely to not see the patch at all and it is much more
> difficult to apply patches.

Ack.
[Sorry for the late reply; I'm balancing other stuff as well and terrible at it]

I'll probably update my practice to also include maintainers via --cc to `git send-email`.
Up until now, I would send emails to lists [as much as possible] and try to not include people directly.
My assumption was that the list is enough.

I'm still adjusting to how things get done in the various Linux kernel subsystems/subgroups.