linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc tree

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:	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:07:35 +0700
From:	André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc
 tree

On 08/03/16 23:06, Sudeep Holla wrote:

Hi Sudeep,

> On 08/03/16 15:52, André Przywara wrote:
>> On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi Wim,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>    d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the
>>> GIC separately")
>>>
>>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in
>>> foundation-v8.dts")
>>>
>>> from the watchdog tree.
>>>
>>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>>> is required).
>>
>> But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
>> belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
>> GICv2-only .dts.
>> So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
>> the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
>> .dtsi file?
>> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
>> breakage is not really critical).
>>
> 
> I have rebased it on top of my earlier PR and sending it shortly.
> I have moved it to dtsi file.

Thanks, that was quick!

Hope that this now does not collide with Fu Wei's fix ;-)

Cheers,
Andre.