greybus-dev

greybus-dev@lists.linaro.org

2 participants
593 discussions

[PATCH] greybus: firmware: use strscpy, fix tag size

by Pranav Tyagi

Increase the size of firmware_tag arrays in the following structs from GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE to GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1 to accommodate null termination: - fw_mgmt_ioc_intf_load_and_validate - fw_mgmt_ioc_get_backend_version - fw_mgmt_ioc_backend_fw_update - fw_mgmt_ioc_get_intf_version Replace strncpy() with strscpy() to ensure proper null termination as firmware_tag is interpreted as a null-terminated string and printed with %s. Signed-off-by: Pranav Tyagi <pranav.tyagi03(a)gmail.com> --- .../greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c | 12 ++++++------ drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_firmware.h | 8 ++++---- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c index 765d69faa9cc..3b4061f4b34a 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c @@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ static int update_intf_firmware(int fd) intf_load.major = 0; intf_load.minor = 0; - strncpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, - GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); + strscpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1); ret = ioctl(fd, FW_MGMT_IOC_INTF_LOAD_AND_VALIDATE, &intf_load); if (ret < 0) { @@ -101,8 +101,8 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Get Backend Firmware Version */ printf("Getting Backend Firmware Version\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, - GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); + strscpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1); retry_fw_version: ret = ioctl(fd, FW_MGMT_IOC_GET_BACKEND_FW, &backend_fw_info); @@ -129,8 +129,8 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Try Backend Firmware Update over Unipro */ printf("Updating Backend Firmware\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, - GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); + strscpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1); retry_fw_update: backend_update.status = 0; diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_firmware.h b/drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_firmware.h index b6042a82ada4..ad5b2c8a6461 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_firmware.h +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/greybus_firmware.h @@ -38,20 +38,20 @@ /* IOCTL support */ struct fw_mgmt_ioc_get_intf_version { - __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE]; + __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1]; __u16 major; __u16 minor; } __packed; struct fw_mgmt_ioc_get_backend_version { - __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE]; + __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1]; __u16 major; __u16 minor; __u8 status; } __packed; struct fw_mgmt_ioc_intf_load_and_validate { - __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE]; + __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1]; __u8 load_method; __u8 status; __u16 major; @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ struct fw_mgmt_ioc_intf_load_and_validate { } __packed; struct fw_mgmt_ioc_backend_fw_update { - __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE]; + __u8 firmware_tag[GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE + 1]; __u8 status; } __packed; -- 2.49.0

3 months

[RFC] spi: expand bits_per_word_mask to 64 bits

by Da Xue

Most current controller IP support 64-bit words. Update the mask to u64 from u32. Signed-off-by: Da Xue <da(a)libre.computer> --- drivers/iio/adc/ad7949.c | 2 +- drivers/spi/spi-dln2.c | 2 +- drivers/spi/spi-ingenic.c | 2 +- drivers/spi/spi-sh-msiof.c | 2 +- drivers/spi/spi.c | 4 ++-- drivers/staging/greybus/spilib.c | 2 +- include/linux/spi/altera.h | 2 +- include/linux/spi/spi.h | 6 +++--- 8 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7949.c b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7949.c index edd0c3a35ab7..469789ffa4a3 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/adc/ad7949.c +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/ad7949.c @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static void ad7949_disable_reg(void *reg) static int ad7949_spi_probe(struct spi_device *spi) { - u32 spi_ctrl_mask = spi->controller->bits_per_word_mask; + u64 spi_ctrl_mask = spi->controller->bits_per_word_mask; struct device *dev = &spi->dev; const struct ad7949_adc_spec *spec; struct ad7949_adc_chip *ad7949_adc; diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-dln2.c b/drivers/spi/spi-dln2.c index 2013bc56ded8..cccbb00ad5ce 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-dln2.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-dln2.c @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ static int dln2_spi_set_bpw(struct dln2_spi *dln2, u8 bpw) } static int dln2_spi_get_supported_frame_sizes(struct dln2_spi *dln2, - u32 *bpw_mask) + u64 *bpw_mask) { int ret; struct { diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-ingenic.c b/drivers/spi/spi-ingenic.c index 318b0768701e..21d453d6e46e 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-ingenic.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-ingenic.c @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ #define SPI_INGENIC_FIFO_SIZE 128u struct jz_soc_info { - u32 bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bits_per_word_mask; struct reg_field flen_field; bool has_trendian; diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sh-msiof.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sh-msiof.c index 94a867967e02..97f5a6192279 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sh-msiof.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sh-msiof.c @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ #define SH_MSIOF_FLAG_FIXED_DTDL_200 BIT(0) struct sh_msiof_chipdata { - u32 bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bits_per_word_mask; u16 tx_fifo_size; u16 rx_fifo_size; u16 ctlr_flags; diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi.c b/drivers/spi/spi.c index 1bc0fdbb1bd7..4f47201f2462 100644 --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c @@ -3824,8 +3824,8 @@ static int __spi_validate_bits_per_word(struct spi_controller *ctlr, u8 bits_per_word) { if (ctlr->bits_per_word_mask) { - /* Only 32 bits fit in the mask */ - if (bits_per_word > 32) + /* Only 64 bits fit in the mask */ + if (bits_per_word > 64) return -EINVAL; if (!(ctlr->bits_per_word_mask & SPI_BPW_MASK(bits_per_word))) return -EINVAL; diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/spilib.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/spilib.c index 24e9c909fa02..087eed1879b1 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/spilib.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/spilib.c @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ struct gb_spilib { unsigned int op_timeout; u16 mode; u16 flags; - u32 bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bits_per_word_mask; u8 num_chipselect; u32 min_speed_hz; u32 max_speed_hz; diff --git a/include/linux/spi/altera.h b/include/linux/spi/altera.h index 3b74c3750caf..d6e036ed00e2 100644 --- a/include/linux/spi/altera.h +++ b/include/linux/spi/altera.h @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ struct altera_spi_platform_data { u16 mode_bits; u16 num_chipselect; - u32 bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bits_per_word_mask; u16 num_devices; struct spi_board_info *devices; }; diff --git a/include/linux/spi/spi.h b/include/linux/spi/spi.h index 4789f91dae94..f44120d5a63c 100644 --- a/include/linux/spi/spi.h +++ b/include/linux/spi/spi.h @@ -586,7 +586,7 @@ struct spi_controller { u32 buswidth_override_bits; /* Bitmask of supported bits_per_word for transfers */ - u32 bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bits_per_word_mask; #define SPI_BPW_MASK(bits) BIT((bits) - 1) #define SPI_BPW_RANGE_MASK(min, max) GENMASK((max) - 1, (min) - 1) @@ -1329,9 +1329,9 @@ spi_max_transfer_size(struct spi_device *spi) */ static inline bool spi_is_bpw_supported(struct spi_device *spi, u32 bpw) { - u32 bpw_mask = spi->controller->bits_per_word_mask; + u64 bpw_mask = spi->controller->bits_per_word_mask; - if (bpw == 8 || (bpw <= 32 && bpw_mask & SPI_BPW_MASK(bpw))) + if (bpw == 8 || (bpw <= 64 && bpw_mask & SPI_BPW_MASK(bpw))) return true; return false; -- 2.39.5

3 months, 1 week

[PATCH] staging: greybus: remove unnecessary GPIO line direction check

by Bartosz Golaszewski

From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski(a)linaro.org> As of commit 92ac7de3175e3 ("gpiolib: don't allow setting values on input lines"), the GPIO core makes sure values cannot be set on input lines. Remove the unnecessary check. Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski(a)linaro.org> --- drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c index f81c34160f720..1280530c8987a 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/gpio.c @@ -192,12 +192,6 @@ static int gb_gpio_set_value_operation(struct gb_gpio_controller *ggc, struct gb_gpio_set_value_request request; int ret; - if (ggc->lines[which].direction == 1) { - dev_warn(dev, "refusing to set value of input gpio %u\n", - which); - return -EPERM; - } - request.which = which; request.value = value_high ? 1 : 0; ret = gb_operation_sync(ggc->connection, GB_GPIO_TYPE_SET_VALUE, -- 2.48.1

3 months, 1 week

[PATCH] staging : greybus : Documentation : firmware : Replace deprecated strncpy() with strscpy()

by rujra

To ensuring that the firmware_tag is properly null-terminated. When copying firmware tag strings to prevent buffer overflows and ensure data integrity. The maximum size of tag is GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE = 10 bytes, and it may or may not be NULL-terminated. included in "greybus_firmware.h" changes has been made at 3 positions: 1: update firmware tag 2: backend update firmware tag 3: backend update firmware tag with unipro Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel(a)gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c index 765d69faa..f37904b91 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static int update_intf_firmware(int fd) intf_load.major = 0; intf_load.minor = 0; - strncpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); ret = ioctl(fd, FW_MGMT_IOC_INTF_LOAD_AND_VALIDATE, &intf_load); @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Get Backend Firmware Version */ printf("Getting Backend Firmware Version\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); retry_fw_version: @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Try Backend Firmware Update over Unipro */ printf("Updating Backend Firmware\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); retry_fw_update: -- 2.43.0

3 months, 2 weeks

[PATCH v2] greybus: Avoid fake flexible array for response data

by clingfei

We want to get rid of zero size arrays and use flexible arrays instead. However, in this case the struct is just one flexible array of u8 which adds no value. Just use a pointer instead. v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505262032.507AD8E0DC@keescook/ Signed-off-by: clingfei <clf700383(a)gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c | 12 ++++-------- include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h | 3 --- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c index 14f1ff6d448c..b248d6717b71 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c @@ -144,15 +144,14 @@ gb_i2c_operation_create(struct gb_connection *connection, } static void gb_i2c_decode_response(struct i2c_msg *msgs, u32 msg_count, - struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response) + u8 *data) { struct i2c_msg *msg = msgs; - u8 *data; u32 i; - if (!response) + if (!data) return; - data = response->data; + for (i = 0; i < msg_count; i++) { if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD) { memcpy(msg->buf, data, msg->len); @@ -188,10 +187,7 @@ static int gb_i2c_transfer_operation(struct gb_i2c_device *gb_i2c_dev, ret = gb_operation_request_send_sync(operation); if (!ret) { - struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response; - - response = operation->response->payload; - gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, response); + gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, operation->response->payload); ret = msg_count; } else if (!gb_i2c_expected_transfer_error(ret)) { dev_err(dev, "transfer operation failed (%d)\n", ret); diff --git a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h index 820134b0105c..6a35c78b967b 100644 --- a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h +++ b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h @@ -678,9 +678,6 @@ struct gb_i2c_transfer_request { __le16 op_count; struct gb_i2c_transfer_op ops[]; /* op_count of these */ } __packed; -struct gb_i2c_transfer_response { - __u8 data[0]; /* inbound data */ -} __packed; /* GPIO */ -- 2.34.1

3 months, 3 weeks

[PATCH] greybus: Avoid fake flexible array for response data

by clingfei

As https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240304211940.it.083-kees@kernel.org/ pointed out, to enforce the 0-sized destinations, the remaining 0-sized destinations need to be handled. Thus the struct gb_control_get_manifest_response and struct gb_i2c_transfer_response are removed. Signed-off-by: clingfei <clf700383(a)gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c | 9 ++++----- include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h | 9 --------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c index 14f1ff6d448c..2857c2834206 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/i2c.c @@ -144,15 +144,14 @@ gb_i2c_operation_create(struct gb_connection *connection, } static void gb_i2c_decode_response(struct i2c_msg *msgs, u32 msg_count, - struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response) + u8 *data) { struct i2c_msg *msg = msgs; - u8 *data; u32 i; - if (!response) + if (!data) return; - data = response->data; + for (i = 0; i < msg_count; i++) { if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD) { memcpy(msg->buf, data, msg->len); @@ -188,7 +187,7 @@ static int gb_i2c_transfer_operation(struct gb_i2c_device *gb_i2c_dev, ret = gb_operation_request_send_sync(operation); if (!ret) { - struct gb_i2c_transfer_response *response; + u8 *response; response = operation->response->payload; gb_i2c_decode_response(msgs, msg_count, response); diff --git a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h index 820134b0105c..14395f9300d6 100644 --- a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h +++ b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h @@ -110,11 +110,6 @@ struct gb_control_get_manifest_size_response { __le16 size; } __packed; -/* Control protocol manifest get request has no payload */ -struct gb_control_get_manifest_response { - __u8 data[0]; -} __packed; - /* Control protocol [dis]connected request */ struct gb_control_connected_request { __le16 cport_id; @@ -678,10 +673,6 @@ struct gb_i2c_transfer_request { __le16 op_count; struct gb_i2c_transfer_op ops[]; /* op_count of these */ } __packed; -struct gb_i2c_transfer_response { - __u8 data[0]; /* inbound data */ -} __packed; - /* GPIO */ -- 2.34.1

3 months, 3 weeks

[PATCH] greybus: Remove gb_control_get_manifest_response struct

by clingfei

The gb_control_get_manifest_response struct is not used. So we delete it in this commit. Signed-off-by: clingfei <clf700383(a)gmail.com> --- include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h | 5 ----- 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h index 820134b0105c..dd09dc691dda 100644 --- a/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h +++ b/include/linux/greybus/greybus_protocols.h @@ -110,11 +110,6 @@ struct gb_control_get_manifest_size_response { __le16 size; } __packed; -/* Control protocol manifest get request has no payload */ -struct gb_control_get_manifest_response { - __u8 data[0]; -} __packed; - /* Control protocol [dis]connected request */ struct gb_control_connected_request { __le16 cport_id; -- 2.34.1

3 months, 3 weeks

Re: [RFC net-next 00/15] Add support for Silicon Labs CPC

by Andrew Lunn

On Sun, May 11, 2025 at 09:27:33PM -0400, Damien Riégel wrote: > Hi, > > > This patchset brings initial support for Silicon Labs CPC protocol, > standing for Co-Processor Communication. This protocol is used by the > EFR32 Series [1]. These devices offer a variety for radio protocols, > such as Bluetooth, Z-Wave, Zigbee [2]. Before we get too deep into the details of the patches, please could you do a compare/contrast to Greybus. The core of Greybus is already in the kernel, with some more bits being in staging. I don't know it too well, but at first glance it looks very similar. We should not duplicate that. Also, this patch adds Bluetooth, you talk about Z-Wave and Zigbee. But the EFR32 is a general purpose SoC, with I2C, SPI, PWM, UART. Greybus has support for these, although the code is current in staging. But for staging code, it is actually pretty good. Why should we add a vendor implementation when we already appear to have something which does most of what is needed? Andrew

3 months, 3 weeks

[PATCH V1] staging : greybus : Documentation : firmware : Replace deprecated strncpy() with strscpy()

by Rujra Bhatt

---------------------------------------------------------- This is the new Patch for the earlier Patch hence made V1. [Note: there will be no significant changes.] ---------------------------------------------------------- Changes: To ensuring that the firmware tag is properly null-terminated. When copying firmware tag strings to prevent buffer overflows and ensure data integrity. Changes has been made in 3 positions: 1: update firmware tag 2: backend update firmware tag 3: backend update firmware tag with unipro Signed-off-by: Rujra Bhatt <braker.noob.kernel(a)gmail.com> --- drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c index 765d69faa..f37904b91 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/Documentation/firmware/firmware.c @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ static int update_intf_firmware(int fd) intf_load.major = 0; intf_load.minor = 0; - strncpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&intf_load.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); ret = ioctl(fd, FW_MGMT_IOC_INTF_LOAD_AND_VALIDATE, &intf_load); @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Get Backend Firmware Version */ printf("Getting Backend Firmware Version\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&backend_fw_info.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); retry_fw_version: @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static int update_backend_firmware(int fd) /* Try Backend Firmware Update over Unipro */ printf("Updating Backend Firmware\n"); - strncpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, + strscpy((char *)&backend_update.firmware_tag, firmware_tag, GB_FIRMWARE_U_TAG_MAX_SIZE); retry_fw_update: -- 2.43.0

4 months

Re: [PATCH RESEND] staging : greybus : Documentation : firmware : Replace deprecated strncpy() with strscpy()

by Rujra Bhatt

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 09:06:00AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post > Q: Were do I find info about this thing called top-posting? > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 11:11:26AM +0530, rujra wrote: > > Hi greg, > > > > why is this a RESEND ?: > > > > >> I had sent the same patch 4 days ago and didn't get any reply , hence tried to resend the same patch for the same, > > here is earlier mail : > > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/?ik=f63b03515e&view=om&permmsgid=msg-a:s:1… > > That is a link to _your_ account, not a public record of your email :( > > > , > > > > line does not match this: > > >> sorry , i could not get it what it is exactly ?, if possible can you share some insights or example so that from in future i would get it right. > > Your "From:" line in your email does not match with the signed-off-by > line. This has been addressed successfully, Kindly preview it. is this the way correct about the reply email ? , kindly let me know as I have tried to get more and more answers and solved issues, and thank you so much for your guidance and will be keep in mind about the process and will not fail next time onwards. thank you, regards, Rujra Bhatt On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 2:02 PM Greg KH <gregkh(a)linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 01:30:44PM +0530, Rujra Bhatt wrote: > > <snip> > > For some reason you sent this only to me, which is a bit rude to > everyone else on the mailing list. I'll be glad to respond if you > resend it to everyone. > > thanks, > > greg k-h

4 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

greybus-dev