Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 17:08:24 +0900 Bongsu Jeon wrote: > max_payload is unused. > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > Signed-off-by: Bongsu Jeon Applied all 3 to net-next, thanks!
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 5:39 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 09:14, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > > > > 2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, k...@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 > > > > > > 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.
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 09:14, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > > 2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, k...@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 > > > > 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
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
2020-11-17 16:42 GMT+09:00, k...@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 > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Sorry about that. I included the tag.
[PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
max_payload is unused.
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Signed-off-by: Bongsu Jeon
---
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(-)
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(>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(>ndev, phy, >i2c_dev->dev, _phy_ops,
- S3FWRN5_I2C_MAX_PAYLOAD);
+ ret = s3fwrn5_probe(>ndev, phy, >i2c_dev->dev, _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,
--
2.17.1
Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
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 Best regards, Krzysztof
[PATCH net-next v2 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: Remove the max_payload
max_payload is unused.
Signed-off-by: Bongsu Jeon
---
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(-)
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(>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(>ndev, phy, >i2c_dev->dev, _phy_ops,
- S3FWRN5_I2C_MAX_PAYLOAD);
+ ret = s3fwrn5_probe(>ndev, phy, >i2c_dev->dev, _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,
--
2.17.1
