linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] clk: hi6220: Add the hi655x's pmic clock

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:   Wed, 12 Apr 2017 09:00:38 +0100
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     sboyd@...eaurora.org, mturquette@...libre.com,
        xuwei5@...ilicon.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] clk: hi6220: Add the hi655x's pmic clock

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 03:06:13PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Apr 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > 
> > > The hi655x multi function device is a PMIC providing regulators.
> > > 
> > > The PMIC also provides a clock for the WiFi and the Bluetooth, let's implement
> > > this clock in order to add it in the hi655x MFD and allow proper wireless
> > > initialization.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changelog:
> > > 
> > >  V2:
> > >     - Added COMPILE_TEST option, compiled on x86
> > >     - Removed useless parenthesis
> > >     - Used of_clk_hw_simple_get() instead of deref dance
> > >     - Do bailout if the clock-names is not specified
> > >     - Rollback on error
> > >     - Folded mfd line change and binding
> > 
> > Why did you do that?
> 
> I thought as the V1 had comments you would have waited for the V2 and as it was
> trivial enough, it could be folded and picked up via the clk tree via with your
> acked-by.

It's *always* a good idea to keep patches subsystem orthogonal if
at all possible.

> I realize it was not a good idea.
> 
> Do you want to drop it from your tree or shall I resubmit a V3 without the mfd
> change?

The latter please.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog