Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <c04c3691-7be3-afc5-4f95-2b06ee402c0d@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:48:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] memory: renesas-rpc-if: Move resource acquisition to
 .probe()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
        Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <cover.1656341824.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <2fd9b9e3f60fe555d9dcad499c90e3ec869aa96e.1656341824.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <c65d6a94-b5c2-e2e4-6fdb-b7982d291e01@linaro.org>
 <CAMuHMdW=s42sfFwimizTsNjyKue+W9NasTOG0jgjkgkoKv3wfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bab4d845-330e-c7f0-5dac-a96caa93a39e@linaro.org>
 <CAMuHMdUuU4qtfYh=hpY9bWMLKAnz83Oj8f=M9_iUxmR+Zetsow@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUuU4qtfYh=hpY9bWMLKAnz83Oj8f=M9_iUxmR+Zetsow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 29/06/2022 20:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> You sure? Except rebasing I don't see that. rpcif_sw_init() received the
>> rpcif so it had access to all fields.
> 
> Yes I am, don't be misguided by the name of the local variable.
> The rpcif structure is allocated by the HF or SPI child driver,
> and thus not available in the RPC core driver's .probe() function.
> The rpc_priv structure (as of patch 4) is allocated by the RPC core driver.
> 
>>> I agree patches 1-3 could be moved later, if you think it is worthwhile.
>>
>> This would not be enough, it has to be first patch to be backportable.
> 
> I can make it second? ;-)

Why? The point is that this commit should have Fixes or Cc-stable tag.
If you make it depending on other non-backportable commit, stable folks
cannot pull it automatically.

> Note that that still precludes (easily) backporting s2ram support.

But S2R is a feature so it won't be backported...

Best regards,
Krzysztof