[Linux-stm32] [PATCH 1/1] tty: serial: use dmaengine_desc_set_callback()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 15:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dma.c  | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_mtk.c  | 3 +--
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_omap.c | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/amba-pl011.c     | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c   | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/fsl_lpuart.c     | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/imx.c            | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/msm_serial.c     | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/mxs-auart.c      | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/pch_uart.c       | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/samsung_tty.c    | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c   | 6 ++----
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c         | 9 +++------
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/sprd_serial.c    | 3 +--
>>>  drivers/tty/serial/stm32-usart.c    | 6 ++----
>>>  15 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <treding at nvidia.com>
> 
> Krzysztof, now look at this case. I would argue that this is even less fit than
> # subpart(s) case, because it might imply anything. Again the problem is the
> bundle, and for such a case (when tons of independent changes are bundled in
> the same stuff, *every* Rb tag has to be explained on what has been reviewed!

I think this case is obvious - Thierry reviewed this patch and gives Rb
tag, according to reviewer's statement of oversight. I don't see a
problem here or what is questionable.


Best regards,
Krzysztof