Re: [PATCH v13 00/10] Add multiport support for DWC3 controllers

[Krishna Kurapati PSSNV <quic_kriskura@quicinc.com>]

On 10/11/2023 3:04 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/11/23 07:11, Krishna Kurapati PSSNV wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2023 2:21 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/7/23 17:47, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>>> Currently the DWC3 driver supports only single port controller which
>>>> requires at most two PHYs ie HS and SS PHYs. There are SoCs that has
>>>> DWC3 controller with multiple ports that can operate in host mode.
>>>> Some of the port supports both SS+HS and other port supports only HS
>>>> mode.
>>>>
>>>> This change primarily refactors the Phy logic in core driver to allow
>>>> multiport support with Generic Phy's.
>>>>
>>>> Changes have been tested on  QCOM SoC SA8295P which has 4 ports (2
>>>> are HS+SS capable and 2 are HS only capable).
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v13:
>>>> This series is a subset of patches in v11 as the first 3 patches in v11
>>>> have been mereged into usb-next.
>>>> Moved dr_mode property from platform specific files to common 
>>>> sc8280xp DT.
>>>> Fixed function call wrapping, added comments and replaced #defines with
>>>> enum in dwc3-qcom for identifying IRQ index appropriately.
>>>> Fixed nitpicks pointed out in v11 for suspend-resume handling.
>>>> Added reported-by tag for phy refactoring patch as a compile error was
>>>> found by kernel test bot [1].
>>> "If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new 
>>> version of
>>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags"
>>>
>>> the issue your patch resolves is not one that was reported by the 
>>> kernel testing robot, it just pointed out that you need to fix up the 
>>> next revision
>>>
>>
>> I Agree. It sounds wrong to add a reproted-by tag making it seem like 
>> a bug instead of a feature we have written. But if we fix the compile 
>> error mentioned and not add the "reported-by", its like not giving 
>> credit for the reporter. So I put in the reproted by and closes tag to 
>> give a view of what was reported and the feature implemented.
> This is a normal thing in review, people spot mistakes, null ptrs, etc..
> 
> If I had a reported-by for each review where I pointed out e.g. device 
> tree changes that don't compile i'd be topping lwn charts
> 

Sure. Will keep this in mind for future patches. And if revising this 
again, will remove the above two tags.

Regards,
Krishna,