Re: RISC-V SoC Drivers for v6.2

[Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 07:00:00AM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 06:38:40 PST (-0800), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 18:24, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > Hey Arnd,
> > > 
> > > Same stuff applies here: lmk if there's something you'd rather see changed.
> > > Perhaps you'd prefer to see PRs per vendor? Although I think that's less
> > > likely to matter here than in the DT stuff. Again, I'll try to get the PR
> > > out a bit earlier next time.
> > 
> > Applied, this looks fine, just a few things to keep in mind:
> 
> Thanks!

Ditto :)

> > - please add "[GIT PULL]" to the subject line of the email
> 
> FWIW, here's the script I use to send pull requests:
https://github.com/palmer-dabbelt/home/blob/master/.local/src/git-send-pull.bash

I noticed that yesterday evening while double checking what I'd sent out
but by then it was too late...
I'll use the script I use for internal stuff going forward & hopefully
avoid a repeat.

> > - Splitting up a large pull request into smaller ones can be
> >   helpful to make sure things don't go in unnoticed. I try to
> >   (briefly) look at each patch, but if you have 20 boring but
> >   large patches, and a small but important patch that I may
> >   need to comment on, that is a good reason to split.

Sure. I'll try to figure out what makes the most sense for a split
versus having stuff in linux-next in a reasonable way. I suppose volume
of changes will mainly dictate the approach.

> > > Not too much to see here, Yang Yingliang has added some error handling
> > > to the setup of the driver that reports SiFive cache topology
> > > information. I've put it on -next given how far we are in the release
> > > cycle, feel free to put it on fixes if you disagree :)
> > 
> > This is fine either way, as none of the fixes are likely to cause
> > any real issues. I usually like to err on the side of having too much
> > in the fixes branch instead of risking to miss something, but I'm
> > just as happy to follow your preference here.

Cool. I'll bear that in mind for next time, thanks.

> > > RISC-V SoC drivers for v6.2
> > > 
> > > SiFive:
> > > - add probe error handling to the ccache driver
> > 
> > Since this tag description becomes part of the git history, try to write
> > it like you would write a commit log in the future. Ideally that
> > avoids bulleted lists (I know they are easy) and instead uses full
> > sentences that explain things about the state of the patches. If there
> > are bugfixes, are users likely to need the fixes or were they found
> > through inspection? For new features, explain who would have the
> > corresponding hardware and what it does. Again, what you have here
> > is not wrong, but it can always get better.

Yeah, I can do that. You likely won't get a Christian Brauner novella
out of me ever, but I'll do something more cover letter-y next time
around.

Thanks again,
Conor.


_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv