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: <78f38031-1723-4474-9bea-1c23918a75f6@microchip.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2024 07:47:31 +0000
From: <Hari.PrasathGE@...rochip.com>
To: <csokas.bence@...lan.hu>, <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
	<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
	<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<Patrice.Vilchez@...rochip.com>, <Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel-quadspi: Create `atmel_qspi_ops` to support
 newer SoC families

Hello Bence,

On 11/4/24 6:26 PM, Csókás Bence wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know 
> the content is safe
> 
> 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/


Thanks for your patch. We are planning to revive this work at the 
earliest. While I don't have specific timeline for this, we at Microchip 
are fully aware of this gap and doing everything we could to keep the 
delta between the upstream kernel and vendor kernel as minimal as possible.

We will discuss internally and provide you the feedback. Thanks again 
for your efforts.

Regards,
Hari

> 
> Bence
> 
>