On Thursday 10 February 2022 15:51:03 CET Kalle Valo wrote:
> Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Thursday 10 February 2022 15:20:56 CET Kalle Valo wrote:
> >> Jérôme Pouiller <jerome.pouiller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> > Kalle, is this function what you expected? If it is right for you, I am
> >> > going to send it to the staging tree.
> >>
> >> Looks better, but I don't get why '{' and '}' are still needed. Ah, does
> >> the firmware require to have them?
> >
> > Indeed. If '{' and '}' are not present, I guarantee the firmware will return
> > an error (or assert). However, I am more confident in the driver than in the
> > firmware to report errors to the user.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If there is no other comment, I am going to:
> > - submit this change to the staging tree
>
> Good, it's important that you get all your changes to the staging tree
> before the next merge window.
>
> > - publish the tool that generate this new format
> > - submit the PDS files referenced in bus_{sdio,spi}.c to linux-firmware
> > - send the v10 of this PR
>
> I'm not sure if there's a need to send a full patchset anymore? We are
> so close now anyway and the full driver is available from the staging
> tree, at least that's what I will use from now on when reviewing wfx.
>
> What about the Device Tree bindings? That needs to be acked by the DT
> maintainers, so that's good to submit as a separate patch for review.
There is also the patch 01/24 about the SDIO IDs.
I think the v10 could contain only 3 patches:
1. mmc: sdio: add SDIO IDs for Silabs WF200 chip
2. dt-bindings: introduce silabs,wfx.yaml
3. [all the patches 3 to 24 squashed]
Would it be right for you?
--
Jérôme Pouiller
