| Message ID | 20201117011611epcms2p22fb0315814144e94856a96014c376a04@epcms2p2 (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net-next,v2,1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload | expand |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > max_payload is unused. Why did you resend the patch ignoring my review? I already provided you with a tag, so you should include it. https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> Best regards, Krzysztof
2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, krzk@kernel.org <krzk@kernel.org>: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote: >> max_payload is unused. > > Why did you resend the patch ignoring my review? I already provided you > with a tag, so you should include it. > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Sorry about that. I included the tag.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 09:14, Bongsu Jeon <bs.jeon87@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, krzk@kernel.org <krzk@kernel.org>: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > >> max_payload is unused. > > > > Why did you resend the patch ignoring my review? I already provided you > > with a tag, so you should include it. > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > > Sorry about that. I included the tag. You need to reduce the rate of sending new patches. You sent v1. Then you sent again v1, which I reviewed. Then you send v2 without my review. So I provided a review. Then you sent again a v2 with my reviewed tags. So there are two v1 patches and two v2. Since I provided you the review tags for v2, no need to send v2 again. It confuses. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 09:14, Bongsu Jeon <bs.jeon87@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, krzk@kernel.org <krzk@kernel.org>: > > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 10:16:11AM +0900, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > > >> max_payload is unused. > > > > > > Why did you resend the patch ignoring my review? I already provided you > > > with a tag, so you should include it. > > > > > > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Krzysztof > > > > > > > Sorry about that. I included the tag. > > You need to reduce the rate of sending new patches. You sent v1. Then > you sent again v1, which I reviewed. Then you send v2 without my > review. So I provided a review. Then you sent again a v2 with my > reviewed tags. So there are two v1 patches and two v2. Since I > provided you the review tags for v2, no need to send v2 again. It > confuses. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof Sorry to confuse you. I made a mistake because I thought that you asked me to resend the patches with the new version(v2). I think you intended that I need to version the patches and describe changes when I update the patches next time. Thanks a lot for reviewing my patches.
diff --git a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/core.c b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/core.c index ba6c486d6465..f8e5d78d9078 100644 --- a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/core.c +++ b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/core.c @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ static struct nci_ops s3fwrn5_nci_ops = { }; int s3fwrn5_probe(struct nci_dev **ndev, void *phy_id, struct device *pdev, - const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops *phy_ops, unsigned int max_payload) + const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops *phy_ops) { struct s3fwrn5_info *info; int ret; @@ -148,7 +148,6 @@ int s3fwrn5_probe(struct nci_dev **ndev, void *phy_id, struct device *pdev, info->phy_id = phy_id; info->pdev = pdev; info->phy_ops = phy_ops; - info->max_payload = max_payload; mutex_init(&info->mutex); s3fwrn5_set_mode(info, S3FWRN5_MODE_COLD); diff --git a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c index dc995286be84..0ffa389066a0 100644 --- a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c +++ b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ #define S3FWRN5_I2C_DRIVER_NAME "s3fwrn5_i2c" -#define S3FWRN5_I2C_MAX_PAYLOAD 32 #define S3FWRN5_EN_WAIT_TIME 150 struct s3fwrn5_i2c_phy { @@ -248,8 +247,7 @@ static int s3fwrn5_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client, if (ret < 0) return ret; - ret = s3fwrn5_probe(&phy->ndev, phy, &phy->i2c_dev->dev, &i2c_phy_ops, - S3FWRN5_I2C_MAX_PAYLOAD); + ret = s3fwrn5_probe(&phy->ndev, phy, &phy->i2c_dev->dev, &i2c_phy_ops); if (ret < 0) return ret; diff --git a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/s3fwrn5.h b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/s3fwrn5.h index ede68bb5eeae..9d5f34759225 100644 --- a/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/s3fwrn5.h +++ b/drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/s3fwrn5.h @@ -34,7 +34,6 @@ struct s3fwrn5_info { struct device *pdev; const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops *phy_ops; - unsigned int max_payload; struct s3fwrn5_fw_info fw_info; @@ -79,7 +78,7 @@ static inline int s3fwrn5_write(struct s3fwrn5_info *info, struct sk_buff *skb) } int s3fwrn5_probe(struct nci_dev **ndev, void *phy_id, struct device *pdev, - const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops *phy_ops, unsigned int max_payload); + const struct s3fwrn5_phy_ops *phy_ops); void s3fwrn5_remove(struct nci_dev *ndev); int s3fwrn5_recv_frame(struct nci_dev *ndev, struct sk_buff *skb,
max_payload is unused. Signed-off-by: Bongsu Jeon <bongsu.jeon@samsung.com> --- drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/core.c | 3 +-- drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/i2c.c | 4 +--- drivers/nfc/s3fwrn5/s3fwrn5.h | 3 +-- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)