linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel-quadspi: Create `atmel_qspi

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]

Message-ID: <ad585127-9e3c-414a-84c2-c4ea3e6d3c7d@prolan.hu>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:56:40 +0100
From: Csókás Bence <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>
To: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Varshini Rajendran <varshini.rajendran@...rochip.com>, Alexandre Belloni
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, "Claudiu
 Beznea" <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel-quadspi: Create `atmel_qspi_ops` to support
 newer SoC families

Hi!

On 2024. 11. 04. 13:48, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 01:37:52PM +0100 schrieb Csókás Bence:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2024. 10. 30. 12:09, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>> I think it's fine to split sama7g5 addition in smaller steps. But please
>>> add the sama7g5 support in the same patch set, otherwise this patch
>>> doesn't make sense on its own.
>>
>> Well, actually, we're using SAMA5D2. My goal was just to somewhat harmonize
>> upstream with the vendor kernel so that we may contribute other patches that
>> we have made on top of the latter, or in the future, take patches from
>> upstream and apply it to our vendor kernel-based tree. This patch was only
>> meant to lay the groundworks for future SAMA7G5 support. I can of course
>> send the "other half" of the original patch if needed, but I wouldn't want
>> it to hold up this refactor.
> 
> It would actually be better if vendor would bring their stuff
> upstream, so there's no need for a vendor kernel.  Did you talk to
> Microchip about their upstreaming efforts?  What was the answer?
> 
> Greets
> Alex

Agreed. Though in this case, the original patch *was* submitted by 
Microchip (by Tudor, originally) for upstream inclusion, but it was not 
merged. Hence this forward-port.
Link: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/20211214133404.121739-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com/

Bence