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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 04:34:15PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 03:35:20PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Correct. I looked at this whole thing and approve of it.

for this type of bundles it's not obvious.

> If I review only parts of something at most I'll give an Acked-by.

Which is strange, don't you find it? The review is not an acknowledgement.
These are two different operations.

> I don't think I've ever done partial reviews. I don't think you can reasonably do
> that
> because if you don't know what other parts of a patch are doing, how can
> you say that a specific hunk does what it's supposed to.
> 
> Patches are an atomic set of changes,

Of course, not always the case. This patch is a bundle of atomic changes
in a single drop.

> so I don't think it makes sense to review only parts of it. If you can't be
> bothered to look at the entirety, that's absolutely fine of course, but in
> that case don't provide a Reviewed-by.
> 
> Or, I suppose, you do and then you bear the consequences of lending
> credibility to something that you haven't looked at or understood.

No, I review *my* part, that I understand and I confirm.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko