Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <9cc6fe19-bd66-ad49-188d-e35a085de397@canonical.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Mar 2022 11:44:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tty: serial: samsung: Add ARTPEC-8 support
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
To:     gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     kernel@axis.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        alim.akhtar@samsung.com, jirislaby@kernel.org,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
References: <20220311094515.3223023-1-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <20220311094515.3223023-3-vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
 <ad94136d-f651-7e6e-b3ec-94553c4c6d3b@canonical.com>
In-Reply-To: <ad94136d-f651-7e6e-b3ec-94553c4c6d3b@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/03/2022 11:42, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/03/2022 10:45, Vincent Whitchurch wrote:
>> Add support for the UART block on the ARTPEC-8 SoC.  This is closely
>> related to the variants used on the Exynos chips.  The register layout
>> is identical to Exynos850 et al but the fifo size is different (64 bytes
>> in each direction for all instances).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>>     v2:
>>     - Added Krzysztof's Reviewed-by.
>>     - Expanded commit message
>>     - Fixed fifo size
>>     - Rebased on top of Krzysztof's "minor fixes/cleanups" series.  This needed a
>>       couple of fixes for build errors.
>>     
>>     (I'm always unsure if Reviewed-by should be carried over or not if the fixes
>>     are minor.  I apologize in advance if carring it over was the wrong thing to do
>>     in this case.)
> 
> For minor fixes, usually we carry Rb tag over. It's fine.
> 

Hi Greg,

Just one note for you - this depends now on my v3 patchset here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220308080919.152715-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com/


Best regards,
Krzysztof