linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] usb: typec: Add driver for Microchip sama7g5 tcpc

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

Message-ID: <YGQU+g8J6gZhn13X@kroah.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 08:21:46 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     cristian.birsan@...rochip.com
Cc:     linux@...ck-us.net, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/2] usb: typec: Add driver for Microchip sama7g5
 tcpc

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 11:54:40PM +0300, cristian.birsan@...rochip.com wrote:
> From: Cristian Birsan <cristian.birsan@...rochip.com>
> 
> This patch set adds initial driver support for Microchip USB Type-C Port
> Controller (TCPC) embedded in sama7g5 SoC.
> 
> The controller does not implement power delivery and the driver uses dummy
> functions to register the port with TCPM. The current silicon version is
> not able to trigger interrupts so the driver will poll for changes on
> CC1/CC2 lines.
> 
> Support for sink is implemented and tested with an USB device. The plan is
> to extend the driver and add source support.

Why are these marked "RFC"?

Do you really not think they should be accepted?  Why not, what is left
to do with them?

I do not normally review "RFC" patches as the authors do not think they
should be merged, and we have plenty of patches that are being asked to
be merged already :)

thanks,

greg k-h