[PATCH v2 0/2] Add support for PolarFire SoC's musb controller

[Conor.Dooley at microchip.com]

On 21/06/2022 16:41, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 03:16:49PM +0000, Conor.Dooley at microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21/06/2022 15:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> Hey Bin, Greg,
>>>> Short series here adding support for USB on Microchip PolarFire SoC FPGAs.
>>>> The kconfig dependency for INVENTRA_DMA has become a bit of a mouthful,
>>>> is there a better way of dealing with that?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Conor.
>>>>
>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>> - Drop unneeded resource copying as per Rob's changes to the other drivers
>>>> - Drop the dts patch
>>>>
>>>> Conor Dooley (2):
>>>>   usb: musb: Add support for PolarFire SoC's musb controller
>>>>   MAINTAINERS: add musb to PolarFire SoC entry
>>>>
>>>>  MAINTAINERS               |   1 +
>>>>  drivers/usb/musb/Kconfig  |  13 +-
>>>>  drivers/usb/musb/Makefile |   1 +
>>>>  drivers/usb/musb/mpfs.c   | 265 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  4 files changed, 279 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/usb/musb/mpfs.c
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> base-commit: f2906aa863381afb0015a9eb7fefad885d4e5a56
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.36.1
>>>>
>>>
>>> Any chance you can get your company to fix up their email settings:
>>>
>>> Grabbing thread from lore.kernel.org/all/20220613114642.1615292-1-conor.dooley%40microchip.com/t.mbox.gz
>>> Analyzing 4 messages in the thread
>>> Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
>>> ---
>>>   ✗ [PATCH v2 1/2] usb: musb: Add support for PolarFire SoC's musb controller
>>>   ✗ [PATCH v2 2/2] MAINTAINERS: add musb to PolarFire SoC entry
>>>   ---
>>>   ✗ BADSIG: DKIM/microchip.com
>>> ---
>>> Total patches: 2
>>>
>>> If I didn't know better, I would think you were spoofing the address...
>>
>> Great, thanks. I was honestly hoping you would make this complaint.
>> I brought it up with our IT before & nothing has happened yet.
> 
> It's amazing that your company emails are even making it to many systems
> these days with that broken.

Well DKIM is actually enabled for the domain - just it is simple/simple
which I would imagine passes in direct emails?

> 
>> At least now I have the direct complaint to forward :)
> 
> Please do, and tell them that in the future, some of us will probably
> start requiring this to pass as I doubt they want just anyone to spoof
> patches from your domain :)

I said as much to them already, hopefully the complaint helps.

Thanks again,
Conor.