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

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 05:26:18PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 05/11/2026 17:20, Andy Shevchenko 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.
> > 
> > It's unclear from a bare tag, It misses that kind of information. Documentation
> > is also unclear to me as it does *not* describe the case what should I do when
> 
> Documentation is clear and I quote to you multiple times, to which you
> did not respond.
> 
> "Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that *the patch* has been reviewed and
> found acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:"
> 
> Important: "THE PATCH"
> 
> Further:
> 
> "I state that:
> (a) I have carried out a technical review of *this patch* to evaluate
> its appropriateness and readiness for inclusion into  the mainline kernel."
> 
> And further:
> 
> "A Reviewed-by tag is a statement of opinion that *the patch* is an"
> 
> All of these are exhaustive (as in complete) statements leaving no
> interpretation whether this is part of patch or entire patch. It is THE
> patch, meaning entire patch.
> 
> You do not drive your car, as only a wheel. You driver *the car*.
> 
> You live in some apartment. *The apartment* is your home, not "piece of
> your apartment is your home".

And I'm trying to explain my point: "the car" in this case is actually "the cars"!
I drive mine, you driver yours. "The PATCH" is wrong term when it's bundled.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko