linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,j721e-pci-host: Add device-id for TI's J784S4 SoC

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]

Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 15:50:20 +0530
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, <kw@...ux.com>, <robh@...nel.org>,
        <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <conor+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <srk@...com>, <s-vadapalli@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt-bindings: PCI: ti,j721e-pci-host: Add device-id
 for TI's J784S4 SoC

Hello Krzysztof,

On 08/01/24 12:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/01/2024 06:07, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>> Add the device-id of 0xb012 for the PCIe controller on the J784S4 SoC as
>> described in the CTRL_MMR_PCI_DEVICE_ID register's PCI_DEVICE_ID_DEVICE_ID
>> field. The Register descriptions and the Technical Reference Manual for
>> J784S4 SoC can be found at: https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/spruj52
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
>> ---
>>
>> This patch is based on linux-next tagged next-20240105.
> 
> Why is this patch incomplete? What is missing here? What are you asking
> about as RFC?

Since the merge window is closed, I was hoping to get the patch reviewed in
order to get any "Reviewed-by" tags if possible. That way, I will be able to
post it again as v1 along with the tags when the merge window opens. For that
reason, I have marked it as an RFC patch. Is there an alternative to this "RFC
patch" method that I have followed? Please let me know.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Regards,
Siddharth.