From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BC1C20E021 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.21 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731404918; cv=none; b=FK1M6BhAZHwKpklAgeCSO2OPy8BZp259BEtlZgyrHrhN1/U4jFpmvYCcuFwD45lvXF8Nvs5DHOcgxQI1j72dFuG+ebFmEMOwHQ13Songbnn0pwMw4xTHW57y2q0qVaPv4Z83mk8bcUUjieuMl8qsiLRJoNJO2r8bOP3GGH4wPkE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731404918; c=relaxed/simple; bh=RkKDAdWbtMOyFm3KjYTYuPWh4xG/YdpIQsa4yIHFMPA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=okYHvRIOfN+1P1HOQCBiekWKHOd0XTlu1WGpS8+ViiNnDpnHu3QCiwFD05ujpDAi4LgsmRWu0SisvQwg7XwWpJN5WCt5Etp5DxAnH1NJJSsADOeKRBi+DB5oVFMr1E8aZLUChsk7Op7M2nt5E/0Gj45i4045jaVv18y7RM668e4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Z21vGaR8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.21 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Z21vGaR8" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1731404917; x=1762940917; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RkKDAdWbtMOyFm3KjYTYuPWh4xG/YdpIQsa4yIHFMPA=; b=Z21vGaR8S0bxLg7pv+7UjCIaJ4xY8SIWH4ff5U78pS8jLPtCp5bzqVS9 KH3SQnIfvq/wBzgg+OWh47YAfot8Zx1uB1H3OtLfyfjg/zXPUlUJECiKV Ur9AzXPLVUOEYUR90n9oTxe5gqW8j8qDf4b6B/qjMrgbXzTvJuT/dRXqJ psIUCVpSl6prtNEVAxzZl1oZdabYYhGIvUIN8itHFqDa2xB3nMDsSXlFO j22woOleuP0fI4wA4vZJUWLQ5GzIIMTzTbMJkHd/qPxHSShCOS/SvQTxR f7Zd+2SJ1/J8Mnv8IXNb/dFKRAjOPXcfCbHPvmFMsWQQGy9cMpbXv6Avn A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 0lfzYO3JQCu2JvypOXrc1g== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Rp9B4kQFSru/7nqJCeTdLw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11222"; a="31191821" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="31191821" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by orvoesa113.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Nov 2024 01:48:37 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: PJ+V/aM9QDiOp18bTYckeQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: IvMFK4y9TI6najQuKH7BsA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,147,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="91394037" Received: from mylly.fi.intel.com (HELO [10.237.72.151]) ([10.237.72.151]) by fmviesa003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Nov 2024 01:48:35 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:48:34 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] i3c: dw: Add support for AMDI0015 ACPI ID To: Shyam Sundar S K , Alexandre Belloni Cc: Sanket.Goswami@amd.com, linux-i3c@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20241108073323.523805-1-Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com> <20241108073323.523805-2-Shyam-sundar.S-k@amd.com> <09cfdd95-c566-4379-be17-2d5e0f0e8357@linux.intel.com> <507a8af4-f128-4d73-9d0f-b8a6a15603d3@amd.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Jarkko Nikula In-Reply-To: <507a8af4-f128-4d73-9d0f-b8a6a15603d3@amd.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi On 11/12/24 10:48 AM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote: >> Am I right this and patch 5/5 can be independent from rest of the series? > > Right. 1/5 and 5/5 can be grouped. But rest of the other patches are > equally important because they drive the usecase. > >> >> To me it looks these two patches enable bus communication and thus be >> useful without rest of the series while latter need more discussion >> (I'll have some notes coming) and Cc'ing linux-acpi. > > I have Cc'ed linux-acpi in this revision. Do you have any feedback for > patches 2-4 ? > Yes, I'm reviewing them and only the patch 2/5 was Cc'ed to linux-acpi. Patchset split would serve better in my opinion enabling basic communication and have an other set concentrating more complex scenario we were try to get input from ACPI folks.