linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/4] nfc: s3fwrn5: extract the common phy blocks

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:42:30 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon2@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-nfc@...ts.01.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 3/4] nfc: s3fwrn5: extract the common phy
 blocks

On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 09:03:49PM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote:
> From: Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@...sung.com>
> 
> Extract the common phy blocks to reuse it.
> The UART module will use the common blocks.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@...sung.com>
> ---
>  Changes in v3:
>    - move the phy_common object to s3fwrn.ko to avoid duplication.
>    - include the header files to include everything which is used inside.
>    - wrap the lines.
> 
>  Changes in v2:
>    - remove the common function's definition in common header file.
>    - make the common phy_common.c file to define the common function.
>    - wrap the lines.
>    - change the Header guard.
>    - remove the unused common function.
> 
>  drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/Makefile     |   2 +-
>  drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c        | 117 +++++++++++++--------------------------
>  drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/phy_common.c |  63 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/phy_common.h |  36 ++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 139 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/phy_common.c
>  create mode 100644 drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/phy_common.h

I am sorry, but I am not going to review this. Please send properly a
next version - v4 of entire patchset - while fixing issues pointed out
in my other email (so use proper workflow).

Best regards,
Krzysztof