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: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 16:04:05 +0530
From: Md Sadre Alam <quic_mdalam@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        "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 2/20/2024 5:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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?

  Sorry, I was not aware of this. Shall I post the next one as V3
  and add references to the RFC patch and this patch in the cover
  letter of V3?
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>