[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <gawyxbgql7pru43e6rz4luhefaayrwiw3fplzj3k5cahzkppzr@uhuemcq5djw7>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2024 10:39:36 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@...cinc.com>
Cc: lpieralisi@...nel.org, kw@...ux.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org,
robh@...nel.org, bhelgaas@...gle.com, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
vkoul@...nel.org, kishon@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konradybcio@...nel.org,
p.zabel@...gutronix.de, quic_nsekar@...cinc.com, dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] phy: qcom: Introduce PCIe UNIPHY 28LP driver
On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 05:03:25PM +0530, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct platform_driver qcom_uniphy_pcie_driver = {
> + .probe = qcom_uniphy_pcie_probe,
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "qcom-uniphy-pcie",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
Srsly, upstreaming 10 year old code? No one figured out to fix 10 year
old code before sending it upstream or entirely drop it and use new code
as template?
NAK
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists