drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c | 6 +----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c | 5 ++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c | 6 +++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-armada8k.c | 6 +++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-histb.c | 9 +++------ drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-kirin.c | 7 ++----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-spear13xx.c | 7 ++----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-visconti.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c | 9 ++------- drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-mobiveil.h | 2 +- 21 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool. 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check. 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check. --- Changes for RESEND: - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> Changes for v2: - Remove the return of some functions (!!) . - Patches 2/3 and 3/3 have not been modified. Based on the following branch: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git/log/?h=controller/dw-rockchip --- Hans Zhang (3): PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c | 6 +----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c | 5 ++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c | 6 +++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-armada8k.c | 6 +++--- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-histb.c | 9 +++------ drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-kirin.c | 7 ++----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-spear13xx.c | 7 ++----- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 2 +- drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-visconti.c | 4 ++-- drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c | 9 ++------- drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-mobiveil.h | 2 +- 21 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) base-commit: 286ed198b899739862456f451eda884558526a9d -- 2.25.1
> 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool. > 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check. > 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check. Do not bother sending such cover letters. This adds no value. Please read the following: - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html - https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchSeries > --- > Changes for RESEND: > - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> Resending a patch is not a place to add new tags. Thank you! Krzysztof
On 2025/5/13 18:21, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: >> 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool. >> 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check. >> 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check. > > Do not bother sending such cover letters. This adds no value. > Dear Krzysztof, Thank you very much for your reply. In my future work, I will make improvements. > Please read the following: > > - https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > - https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchSeries > >> --- >> Changes for RESEND: >> - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > Resending a patch is not a place to add new tags. > Sorry, this is also the first time I have done this. For other patches in the future, I will do this in the new version. > Thank you! > > Krzysztof Best regards, Hans
Hello, [...] > Sorry, this is also the first time I have done this. For other patches in > the future, I will do this in the new version. See the following: - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20250513145728.GA3513600@rocinante While I cannot speak for other maintainers, I am going to change the approach to the "RESEND" patches that I used to personally have. But, if in doubt, it's always fine to send another version. Thank you! Krzysztof
On 2025/5/13 23:04, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > Hello, > > [...] >> Sorry, this is also the first time I have done this. For other patches in >> the future, I will do this in the new version. > > See the following: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20250513145728.GA3513600@rocinante > > While I cannot speak for other maintainers, I am going to change the > approach to the "RESEND" patches that I used to personally have. > > But, if in doubt, it's always fine to send another version. > Dear Krzysztof, Ok. From now on, I will handle similar problems in the new version. Best regards, Hans
On 13 May 2025 17:09:58 CEST, Hans Zhang <18255117159@163.com> wrote: > > >On 2025/5/13 23:04, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: >> Hello, >> >> [...] >>> Sorry, this is also the first time I have done this. For other patches in >>> the future, I will do this in the new version. >> >> See the following: >> >> - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20250513145728.GA3513600@rocinante >> >> While I cannot speak for other maintainers, I am going to change the >> approach to the "RESEND" patches that I used to personally have. >> >> But, if in doubt, it's always fine to send another version. >> > > >Dear Krzysztof, > >Ok. From now on, I will handle similar problems in the new version. While I agree that it is always fine to send a new revision (which has picked up tags), having the RESEND tag is gently informing that the series might have fell thorough the cracks. This information might be lost/less obvious if simply sending a new revision (assuming that commit log and code is unchanged). Kind regards, Niklas
Hello Krzysztof, On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 07:21:15PM +0900, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: > > --- > > Changes for RESEND: > > - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > Resending a patch is not a place to add new tags. While I realize that: https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient states: """ "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a patch or patch series which have not been modified in any way from the previous submission. """ I would assume that this only refers to the commit log and code, and that picking up tags has to be an acceptable exception. If I take myself as an example, I would not be happy if I spent time reviewing a large patch series, but because the maintainers somehow missed that series, so the patch author has to RESEND it (without picking up tags), my Reviewed-by tags get lost. Kind regards, Niklas
Hello, > > > Changes for RESEND: > > > - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > > > Resending a patch is not a place to add new tags. > > While I realize that: > https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html#don-t-get-discouraged-or-impatient > > states: > """ > "RESEND" only applies to resubmission of a patch or patch series which > have not been modified in any way from the previous submission. > """ Yes, I would often take verbiage of this document verbatim, but.. > I would assume that this only refers to the commit log and code, > and that picking up tags has to be an acceptable exception. The above comment prompted me to inquire with a more senior maintainers, purely as I was curious what the opinions/preferences would be. And, as such, the replies I've got were: - No, follow the documentation - I don't care, really - It's OK, make sure to pick the tag, if it makes sense So, wide spectrum of answers. As such, I take it as, "it's up to the maintainer", for lack of less ambiguous answers. > If I take myself as an example, I would not be happy if I spent time > reviewing a large patch series, but because the maintainers somehow > missed that series, so the patch author has to RESEND it (without > picking up tags), my Reviewed-by tags get lost. While it's not about making you happy, I agree, that trying to preserve the tag might be the correct approach here. As such, I will adopt this approach, whereas with other it might vary. Thank you! Krzysztof
On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 12:07:07AM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote: > 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool. > 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check. > 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check. Please do not paste the patch subjects in cover letter. Cover letter should elaborate the issue this series is fixing, its purpose, any dependency etc... - Mani > > --- > Changes for RESEND: > - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > > Changes for v2: > - Remove the return of some functions (!!) . > - Patches 2/3 and 3/3 have not been modified. > > Based on the following branch: > https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git/log/?h=controller/dw-rockchip > --- > > Hans Zhang (3): > PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool > PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check > PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check > > drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c | 6 +----- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c | 5 ++--- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-armada8k.c | 6 +++--- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-histb.c | 9 +++------ > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-kirin.c | 7 ++----- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-spear13xx.c | 7 ++----- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 2 +- > drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-visconti.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c | 9 ++------- > drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-mobiveil.h | 2 +- > 21 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 286ed198b899739862456f451eda884558526a9d > -- > 2.25.1 > -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
On 2025/5/13 17:40, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 12:07:07AM +0800, Hans Zhang wrote: >> 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool. >> 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check. >> 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check. > > Please do not paste the patch subjects in cover letter. Cover letter should > elaborate the issue this series is fixing, its purpose, any dependency etc... > Dear Mani, Thank you very much for your reply and reminder. In future submissions, I will pay attention to this point. Best regards, Hans > - Mani > >> >> --- >> Changes for RESEND: >> - add Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> >> >> Changes for v2: >> - Remove the return of some functions (!!) . >> - Patches 2/3 and 3/3 have not been modified. >> >> Based on the following branch: >> https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pci/pci.git/log/?h=controller/dw-rockchip >> --- >> >> Hans Zhang (3): >> PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool >> PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check >> PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check >> >> drivers/pci/controller/cadence/pci-j721e.c | 6 +----- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-dra7xx.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-exynos.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-keystone.c | 5 ++--- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pci-meson.c | 6 +++--- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-armada8k.c | 6 +++--- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.h | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-dw-rockchip.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-histb.c | 9 +++------ >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-keembay.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-kirin.c | 7 ++----- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom-ep.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-qcom.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-rcar-gen4.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-spear13xx.c | 7 ++----- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-tegra194.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-uniphier.c | 2 +- >> drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-visconti.c | 4 ++-- >> drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-layerscape-gen4.c | 9 ++------- >> drivers/pci/controller/mobiveil/pcie-mobiveil.h | 2 +- >> 21 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) >> >> >> base-commit: 286ed198b899739862456f451eda884558526a9d >> -- >> 2.25.1 >> >
On Sun, 11 May 2025 00:07:07 +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool.
> 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check.
> 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check.
>
Applied, thanks!
[1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool
commit: f46bfb1d3c6a601caad90eb3c11a1e1e17cccb1a
[2/3] PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check
commit: 0a9d6a3d0fd1650b9ee00bc8150828e19cadaf23
[3/3] PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check
commit: 1a176b25f5d6f00c6c44729c006379b9a6dbc703
Best regards,
--
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Hello Mani,
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 10:33:59AM +0100, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 May 2025 00:07:07 +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool.
> > 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check.
> > 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check.
> >
>
> Applied, thanks!
>
> [1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool
> commit: f46bfb1d3c6a601caad90eb3c11a1e1e17cccb1a
> [2/3] PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check
> commit: 0a9d6a3d0fd1650b9ee00bc8150828e19cadaf23
> [3/3] PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check
> commit: 1a176b25f5d6f00c6c44729c006379b9a6dbc703
>
This was all applied to the dw-rockchip branch.
Was that intentional?
My guess is that perhaps you thought that
"PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool"
was going to conflict with Hans's other commit:
5e5a3bf48eed ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Use rockchip_pcie_link_up() to check link
up instead of open coding")
but at least from looking at the diff, they don't seem to touch the same
lines, but perhaps you got a conflict anyway?
mobiveil and cadence patches seem unrelated to dw-rockchip
(unrelated to DWC even).
If it was intentional, all is good, but perhaps the branch
should have a more generic name, rather than dw-rockchip,
especially now when the reset-slot and qcom-reset slot patches
are also on the same branch.
Kind regards,
Niklas
On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 10:52:17AM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello Mani,
>
> On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 10:33:59AM +0100, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 May 2025 00:07:07 +0800, Hans Zhang wrote:
> > > 1. PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool.
> > > 2. PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check.
> > > 3. PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check.
> > >
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
> >
> > [1/3] PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool
> > commit: f46bfb1d3c6a601caad90eb3c11a1e1e17cccb1a
> > [2/3] PCI: mobiveil: Refactor link status check
> > commit: 0a9d6a3d0fd1650b9ee00bc8150828e19cadaf23
> > [3/3] PCI: cadence: Simplify j721e link status check
> > commit: 1a176b25f5d6f00c6c44729c006379b9a6dbc703
> >
>
> This was all applied to the dw-rockchip branch.
>
> Was that intentional?
Yes it was.
>
> My guess is that perhaps you thought that
> "PCI: dwc: Standardize link status check to return bool"
> was going to conflict with Hans's other commit:
> 5e5a3bf48eed ("PCI: dw-rockchip: Use rockchip_pcie_link_up() to check link
> up instead of open coding")
>
> but at least from looking at the diff, they don't seem to touch the same
> lines, but perhaps you got a conflict anyway?
>
I think I got a conflict and I saw that the cover letter mentioned dw-rockchip
as a dependency, so I applied to that branch.
>
>
> mobiveil and cadence patches seem unrelated to dw-rockchip
> (unrelated to DWC even).
>
> If it was intentional, all is good, but perhaps the branch
> should have a more generic name, rather than dw-rockchip,
> especially now when the reset-slot and qcom-reset slot patches
> are also on the same branch.
>
Yeah, I agree. Since there are 3 series on this branch, we need to pick a smart
name ;) I will do so. Thanks!
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.