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 12:01:22 +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 21/02/2024 11:34, Md Sadre Alam wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

Yes, like with every posting.

Best regards,
Krzysztof