[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eaca7890-af22-4913-9758-53846ad1ec79@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:48:34 +0200
From: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Shyam Sundar S K <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
Cc: Sanket.Goswami@....com, linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] i3c: dw: Add support for AMDI0015 ACPI ID
Hi
On 11/12/24 10:48 AM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>> Am I right this and patch 5/5 can be independent from rest of the series?
>
> Right. 1/5 and 5/5 can be grouped. But rest of the other patches are
> equally important because they drive the usecase.
>
>>
>> To me it looks these two patches enable bus communication and thus be
>> useful without rest of the series while latter need more discussion
>> (I'll have some notes coming) and Cc'ing linux-acpi.
>
> I have Cc'ed linux-acpi in this revision. Do you have any feedback for
> patches 2-4 ?
>
Yes, I'm reviewing them and only the patch 2/5 was Cc'ed to linux-acpi.
Patchset split would serve better in my opinion enabling basic
communication and have an other set concentrating more complex scenario
we were try to get input from ACPI folks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists