Merge tag 'i3c/for-7.3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/i3c/linuxgrafted

Pull I3C updates from Alexandre Belloni:
 "A new driver this cycle, for the AMD AXI I3C controller.

  There are also new features such as IBI wakeup support, SETAASA device
  discovery and ACPI support for the the DAA methods, meaning we can now
  communicate with the SPD devices on DDR5 modules.

  New driver:
   - AMD AXI I3C master controller

  Subsystem:
   - I3C Common Command Code (CCC) handling improvements, especially
     around GET CCCs
   - SETAASA device discovery support
   - ACPI support for all existing DAA methods like SETDASA, SETNEWDA as
     well as I2C devices on I3C bus
   - IBI-based wakeup support

  Drivers:
   - dw: SETAASA support
   - mipi-i3c-hci: advertise IBI wakeup capability, AMD_PT I3C
     controller support, PIO queue management support for HCI v1.2
   - renesas: improve suspend to RAM support, add runtime PM support"

* tag 'i3c/for-7.3' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/i3c/linux: (70 commits)
  i3c: dw: reduce do_daa time if there's no client
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Add support for AMD_PT I3C controller
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Add PIO queue management support for HCI v1.2
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Fix missing STAT_IBI_STATUS_THLD in PIO mode
  i3c: dw: rename "pclk" to "apb" to match dt-binding
  i3c: dw: make struct dw_i3c_cmd smaller
  i3c: dw: use COMMAND_PORT_TRANSFER_ARG instead of hardcoding
  i3c: renesas: Don't register devices when ENTDAA times out
  i3c: master: dw-i3c-master: fix OD timing for first broadcast
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Advertise IBI wakeup capability
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci: Factor out i3c_hci_sysdev()
  i3c: mipi-i3c-hci-pci: Propagate I3C wakeup requirements to PCI
  i3c: master: Reject IBI requests from non-IBI-capable devices
  i3c: master: Add helper to query bus wakeup requirements
  i3c: master: Report wakeup events for IBIs
  i3c: master: Support IBI-based wakeup capability
  i3c: master: Fix potential UAF in i3c_device_match()
  i3c: master: Fix potential UAF in i3c_device_uevent()
  i3c: Make dev->desc locking assumptions explicit
  i3c: master: Fix use-after-free of master->this
  ...

1 files changed, 116 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..aad2caad9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/process/generated-content.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+============================================
+Kernel Guidelines for Tool-Generated Content
+============================================
+
+Purpose
+=======
+
+Kernel contributors have been using tooling to generate contributions
+for a long time. These tools can increase the volume of contributions.
+At the same time, reviewer and maintainer bandwidth is a scarce
+resource. Understanding which portions of a contribution come from
+humans versus tools is helpful to maintain those resources and keep
+kernel development healthy.
+
+The goal here is to clarify community expectations around tools. This
+lets everyone become more productive while also maintaining high
+degrees of trust between submitters and reviewers.
+
+Out of Scope
+============
+
+These guidelines do not apply to tools that make trivial tweaks to
+preexisting content. Nor do they pertain to tooling that helps with
+menial tasks. Some examples:
+
+ - Spelling and grammar fix ups, like rephrasing to imperative voice
+ - Typing aids like identifier completion, common boilerplate or
+   trivial pattern completion
+ - Purely mechanical transformations like variable renaming
+ - Reformatting, like running Lindent, ``clang-format`` or
+   ``rust-fmt``
+
+Even whenever your tool use is out of scope, you should still always
+consider if it would help reviewing your contribution if the reviewer
+knows about the tool that you used.
+
+In Scope
+========
+
+These guidelines apply when a meaningful amount of content in a kernel
+contribution was not written by a person in the Signed-off-by chain,
+but was instead created by a tool.
+
+Detection of a problem and testing the fix for it is also part of the
+development process; if a tool was used to find a problem addressed by
+a change, that should be noted in the changelog. This not only gives
+credit where it is due, it also helps fellow developers find out about
+these tools.
+
+Some examples:
+ - Any tool-suggested fix such as ``checkpatch.pl --fix``
+ - Coccinelle scripts
+ - A chatbot generated a new function in your patch to sort list entries.
+ - A .c file in the patch was originally generated by a coding
+   assistant but cleaned up by hand.
+ - The changelog was generated by handing the patch to a generative AI
+   tool and asking it to write the changelog.
+ - The changelog was translated from another language.
+
+If in doubt, choose transparency and assume these guidelines apply to
+your contribution.
+
+Guidelines
+==========
+
+First, read the Developer's Certificate of Origin:
+Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst. Its rules are simple
+and have been in place for a long time. They have covered many
+tool-generated contributions. Ensure that you understand your entire
+submission and are prepared to respond to review comments.
+
+Second, when making a contribution, be transparent about the origin of
+content in cover letters and changelogs. You can be more transparent
+by adding information like this:
+
+ - What tools were used?
+ - The input to the tools you used, like the Coccinelle source script.
+ - If code was largely generated from a single or short set of
+   prompts, include those prompts. For longer sessions, include a
+   summary of the prompts and the nature of resulting assistance.
+ - Which portions of the content were affected by that tool?
+ - How is the submission tested and what tools were used to test the
+   fix?
+
+As with all contributions, individual maintainers have discretion to
+choose how they handle the contribution. For example, they might:
+
+ - Treat it just like any other contribution.
+ - Reject it outright.
+ - Treat the contribution specially, for example, asking for extra
+   testing, reviewing with extra scrutiny, or reviewing at a lower
+   priority than human-generated content.
+ - Ask for some other special steps, like asking the contributor to
+   elaborate on how the tool or model was trained.
+ - Ask the submitter to explain in more detail about the contribution
+   so that the maintainer can be assured that the submitter fully
+   understands how the code works.
+ - Suggest a better prompt instead of suggesting specific code changes.
+
+If tools permit you to generate a contribution automatically, expect
+additional scrutiny in proportion to how much of it was generated.
+
+As with the output of any tooling, the result may be incorrect or
+inappropriate. You are expected to understand and to be able to defend
+everything you submit. If you are unable to do so, then do not submit
+the resulting changes.
+
+If you do so anyway, maintainers are entitled to reject your series
+without detailed review.
+
+References
+==========
+
+For specific guidelines on AI coding assistants, see:
+
+* Documentation/process/coding-assistants.rst