linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 29 Jun 2013 21:11:32 +0100
From:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Emilio Lopez <emilio@...pez.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: sunxi: Convert DTSI to new CPU bindings

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 08:38:19PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Maxime Ripard
> > <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 06:15:32PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > >> The patch above should already be queued in next/dt right ?
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> > >
> > > Then why the latest patch of your patchset got in 3.10, while the
> > > patches actually fixing the DT it would have impacted were delayed to
> > > 3.11?
> > >
> > > (And why was it merged so late in the development cycle?)
> > 
> > This. So now we have to scramble because some device trees will
> > produce warnings at boot.
> > 
> > Russell, the alternative is to revert Lorenzo's patch for 3.10 (and
> > re-introduce it for 3.11). Do you have a preference?
> 
> Sorry but I really don't understand what all the fuss in this thread
> is about.
> 
> This thread seems to be saying that two development patches were
> merged, which were 7762/1 and 7763/1, and that 7764/1 is a fix?
> Are you sure about that, because that's not how they're described,
> and not how they look either.

Russell, technically speaking what are you saying is correct, but the
problem is that the 7762/1, 7763/1 and 7764/1 were part of a series
to update DT cpu/cpus bindings, topology, bring dts files up to standard
and update kernel code to comply. The problem is the following: if
7762/1 is merged but dts updates in the arm-soc tree (that can be
considered fixes, but as I said it is hard to draw a line between fixes
and dev since this series is meant to redefine the DT bindings themselves
to make them as compliant as possible with ePAPR) are not merged at the same
time, the kernel triggers warnings for boards with non-compliant dts.

That's the same reason why I asked to drop 7762/1 from stable queues,
since if it gets there all dts updates should get there at the same
time.

Please let me know if that's unclear and how I can help you fix the
problem, I am just trying to syncronize all the changes the best I can.

Apologies and thanks,
Lorenzo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/