[PATCH v2 1/1] spi: use dmaengine_desc_set_callback()

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 11:01:55AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 05, 2026 at 12:02:21AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 04/11/2026 21:44, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >> Andy,
> > >> These three lines look correct.
> > >>
> > >> LGTM:
> > >>
> > >> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
> > > 
> > > As
> > > 
> > >   Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org> # atmel-quadspi
> > > 
> > > Note, it's in your power to ask the author to split out what you maintain
> > > to a separate change. So, it's your choice what to do, Ack the full patch,
> > > give a partial Rb, ask for a split, ignore reviewing (often means silent
> > > agreement when maintainer just applies that kind of a patch)
> > 
> > The "# note" after the tag solves the problem partially, if people were
> > actually using it. Solves people looking at the Git commit and being
> > mislead by partial review applying to entire commit. Does not solve
> > credits, because Rb for three lines is not the same as for 100.
> > 
> > From v1 of this patch, four people (Alain, Lab, Troy, Kunihiko) did not
> > use it even though reviewing only part. Only Wolfram, so 20% of partial
> > reviews, used that syntax. Without that syntax, b4 will pick up Rb tag
> > like it was for entire commit.
> > 
> > So I do repeat - if one does not want to use that syntax, then just Ack,
> > instead of creating false impression of reviewing everything.
> 
> +Konstantin, then we need to teach `b4` not to break that or convert it to
> something like
> 
>   [FirstName: reviewed only ...]
>   Reviewed-by: FirstName LastName <...>

And Ack is not the same as Rb, when I *reviewed* patch, I have *reviewed* it,
even if it was partial one.

Also Jon Corbet might share his opinion from documentation point of view.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko