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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 17:16, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.

No, it was still 100% obvious. Tag was placed under entire file-list,
even indicating that this was the intention.

> 
>> 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.

Andy, you mix review with Reviewer's Statement of Oversight. It clearly
states that it applies for THE patch, which is atomic, one logical
change being reviewed.

Best regards,
Krzysztof