On 12/27/2024 3:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 27/12/2024 10:18, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >> >> >> On 12/27/2024 1:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 27/12/2024 08:24, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: >>>> SPI protocol runs on serial engine 4. Hence rename >>>> spi0 pins to spi4 like spi0_cs to spi4_cs etc. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Manikanta Mylavarapu <quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>> >>> >>> <form letter> >>> This is a friendly reminder during the review process. >>> >>> It looks like you received a tag and forgot to add it. >>> >>> If you do not know the process, here is a short explanation: >>> Please add Acked-by/Reviewed-by/Tested-by tags when posting new versions >>> of patchset, under or above your Signed-off-by tag, unless patch changed >>> significantly (e.g. new properties added to the DT bindings). Tag is >>> "received", when provided in a message replied to you on the mailing >>> list. Tools like b4 can help here. However, there's no need to repost >>> patches *only* to add the tags. The upstream maintainer will do that for >>> tags received on the version they apply. >>> >>> Please read: >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.12-rc3/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L577 >>> >>> If a tag was not added on purpose, please state why and what changed. >>> </form letter> >>> >> >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> Patches #1 to #4 are newly added in V3 (to rename SPI0 to SPI4). Hence, there are no A-b/R-b >> tags associated with these patches. I mentioned this information in the cover letter. >> >> I assume you are referring to Patch #1 from the V2 series. >> Patch #1 [1] and #2 [2] from the V2 series have been merged into linux-next. >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-2-quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20241217091308.3253897-3-quic_mmanikan@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Please let me know if i missed anything. > > v3 mislead me here and three different subsystems in one patchset. > > Anyway, if this is different patch then review follows - there is no ABI > impact explanation and this is an ABI break. What's more, entries are > not sorted anymore and why there is a gap? spi4, spi1 and spi10? Where > is spi3? > > Not sure if this renaming is useful or correct, especially considering > not many arguments in commit msg (e.g. datasheet?). > > Hi Krzysztof, The IPQ5424 supports two SPI instances on serial engine 4 and 5. Previously, SPI clocks, gpio pins and DTS node names were named according to protocol instances like spi0 and spi1. As per the feedback received in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ca0ecc07-fd45-4116-9927-8eb3e737505f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/, spi0 has been renamed to spi4 to align with the serial engine instance. Kindly advice if it's not acceptable. Thanks & Regards, Manikanta.
