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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 05/11/2026 18:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.

It is still the patch being reviewed on the list, regardless how much
you dislike bundling or how much you would like to call it. And in my
example from the commit to workflows (not here), the patch COULD NOT be
split. The patch was consisting of main part and drivers update, so
skipping the main part invalidates entire review from statement of
oversight point of view.

Reviewer's statement of oversight does not allow you to add Rb tag for
partial reviews.

Best regards,
Krzysztof