From e24328974a88aa8541e94e8bb8dfa2ade1b3c45d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Donggeun Yoo Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 00:21:26 +0900 Subject: iio: proximity: vl53l0x-i2c: claim direct mode for raw reads vl53l0x_read_raw() starts a single-shot ranging measurement and reads back the result. Once the triggered buffer is enabled the sensor runs in continuous mode and its data-ready interrupt is routed to the trigger, so a concurrent in_distance_raw read disturbs the streaming setup and never gets its completion, returning -ETIMEDOUT. The original submission claimed direct mode here, but it was dropped during review because the driver had no buffer support at the time [1]. Continuous (buffered) mode was later added without restoring the claim [2], reintroducing the conflict. Reject direct reads while buffered capture is active by claiming direct mode around the measurement, as the vl53l1x sibling already does. Fixes: 762186c6e7b1 ("iio: proximity: vl53l0x-i2c: Added continuous mode support") Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20180911160300.GA9212@himanshu-Vostro-3559/ [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/20240909101508.263085-3-abhashkumarjha123@gmail.com/ [2] Signed-off-by: Donggeun Yoo Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron --- Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 72 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst (limited to 'Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst') diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ecc3ed638 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-devicetree.rst @@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +====================================== +Devicetree and Open Firmware Subsystem +====================================== + +Other Process Documents +----------------------- + +Please see the documents in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ for information +on how to write proper Devicetree bindings and how to submit patches. + +Patch Review and Handling +------------------------- + +Patches handled by Devicetree maintainers are processed differently depending +on the patch type: + +1. Core OF driver code, e.g. drivers/of/: + patches are reviewed and applied by DT maintainers. + +2. Devicetree bindings: + patches are reviewed by DT maintainers, but should be applied by subsystem + maintainers except in certain cases. See also *For kernel maintainers* in + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst. + +3. DTS and drivers: + DT maintainers might provide comments, but review is generally not expected. + DTS must pass schema checks (dtbs_check) or at least do not add any + new warnings. + +Patchwork +~~~~~~~~~ + +Devicetree maintainers review patches using Patchwork, so the current status of +a patch can be checked there. For typical driver submissions, Patchwork +receives the entire patch set, but only a few patches are usually Devicetree +bindings that are reviewed by DT maintainers. + +Explanation of Patchwork statuses: + + - **New**: Not yet processed by the automation toolset. + - **Needs ACK**: Waiting for review by DT maintainers. + - **Handled Elsewhere**: Non-DT patch; not being reviewed here. + - **RFC**: Patch was likely ignored because it was an incomplete RFC. + - **Changes Requested**: Patch was reviewed and DT maintainers expect changes. + - **Accepted**: Patch was reviewed and applied by DT maintainers to their tree. + - **Not Applicable**: Patch was reviewed and is likely in good shape, with a + *Reviewed-by* or *Acked-by* tag provided, but DT maintainers expect someone + else to apply it. + +Patch Re-review and Pinging +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + +Due to the high volume of email traffic, Devicetree maintainers do not read +every email they receive and instead rely on Patchwork during the review +process. They also often skip patches that have already been reviewed. + +As a result, maintainers might miss: + +1. Questions about already reviewed patches. +2. Pings, for example when a patch has been reviewed by DT maintainers but has + not been picked up by subsystem maintainers. + +Such cases can be addressed by: + +1. Pinging DT maintainers on the IRC channel. +2. Dropping the DT maintainer’s *Acked-by* or *Reviewed-by* tag when sending a new + version of the patch set, together with an explanation in the patch + changelog describing why the tag was removed and what is expected from DT + maintainers. + -- cgit v1.3.1