[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YzF55ckrtsNaxZUq@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:07:33 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
wsa@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org, jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com,
robh@...nel.org, semen.protsenko@...aro.org, sven@...npeter.dev,
jsd@...ihalf.com, rafal@...ecki.pl, olof@...om.net, arnd@...db.de,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 i2c-master] i2c: microchip: pci1xxxx: Add driver for
I2C host controller in multifunction endpoint of pci1xxxx switch
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 02:16:54PM +0530, Tharun Kumar P wrote:
> Microchip pci1xxxx is an unmanaged PCIe3.1a Switch for Consumer,
> Industrial and Automotive applications. This switch has multiple
> downstream ports. In one of the Switch's Downstream port, there
> is a multifunction endpoint for peripherals which includes an I2C
> host controller. The I2C function in the endpoint operates at 100KHz,
> 400KHz and 1 MHz and has buffer depth of 128 bytes.
> This patch provides the I2C controller driver for the I2C function
> of the switch.
> ---
> V4 -> V5:
> 1. Removed autoprobe
> ---
> V3 -> V4:
> 1. Removed typecasting for fields of min_t
> 2. Replaced TRUE with true
> ---
> V2 -> V3:
> 1. Replaced SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS with DEFINE_SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS
> 2. Used devm_add_action API to avoid mixing devm and non-devm APIs
> ---
> RFC -> V2:
> 1. Removed pci_free_irq_vectors API in code since pcim_enable_device
> is used
> 2. Added pci1xxxx_i2c_shutdown API in failure case of
> pci_alloc_irq_vectors and devm_request_irq
> 3. Used devm variant of i2c_add_adapter
> 4. Resolved name collision and fixed styling issues in comments
> ---
> Signed-off-by: Tharun Kumar P <tharunkumar.pasumarthi@...rochip.com>
There is no SoB tag in your message. Homework: to understand what went wrong
and fix in v6. Without SoB tag this may not be considered at all.
Also, if somebody gave you a tag (reviewers/maintainers) in the previous
versions, it's your as a contributor responsibility to bear those tags with
new versions in case there were no drastic functional changes. Otherwise
there is no point to review your changes.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists