linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add QPIC SPI NAND driver

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: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:36:18 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, richard@....at, vigneshr@...com,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, quic_srichara@...cinc.com,
 quic_varada@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add QPIC SPI NAND driver

On 20/02/2024 12:32, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/19/2024 6:34 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:18:51PM +0530, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
>>> This series of patches will add initial supports
>>> for QPIC SPI NAND driver.
>>>
>>> Currently this driver support following commands
>>>
>>> -- RESET
>>> -- READ ID
>>> -- BLOCK ERASE
>>> -- PAGE READ
>>> -- PAGE WRITE
>>> -- GET FEATURE
>>> -- SET FEATURE
>>> -- BAD BLOCK CHECK
>>>
>>> This driver has been tested with dd command with read/write page
>>> with multiple file size 1MiB, 10MiB,40MiB etc.
>>> Also tested with "mtd" command like mtd erase, mtd write, mtd verify etc.
>>>
>>
>> This is not the first version isn't it? Where is the changelog describing what
>> has changed since then?
> 
>    The earlier patch was the RFC for design review only.

RFC is state of patch, not version. This is v2 then.

These RFC postings are really becoming mess. Some people make multiple
RFCs and then post v1 hiding entire previous history... And why even
bother with calling it RFC?

Best regards,
Krzysztof