On 30/12/2024 08:50, Manikanta Mylavarapu wrote: > > > 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. The advice was not about pins, though. My comments stands for commit msg. Nothing about ABI, nothing about datasheet... Best regards, Krzysztof
