linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] i2c: designware: add SLAVE mode functions

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:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:05:03 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Luis Oliveira <Luis.Oliveira@...opsys.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ramiro Oliveira <Ramiro.Oliveira@...opsys.com>,
        Joao Pinto <Joao.Pinto@...opsys.com>,
        CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 5/6] i2c: designware: add SLAVE mode functions

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 6:58 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> wrote:
>> Believe me I've looked for mistakes like this but I've read the code so many
>> times I don't think I can see the obvious anymore.
>
> Yes, I know this. And you worked hard on this slave feature,
> acknowledged.
>
> Patches 1-4 look good to me from what I glimpsed. I largely trust here
> the *much* appreciated review from Jarkko and Andy. Thanks a lot, guys!
>
> I wonder if we haven't reached a state where Luis just could fix the
> buildbot error (missing 'select I2C_SLAVE') and the thing pointed out by
> Andy and we handle further small fixes incrementally during the v4.13
> cycle? AFAICS there is no major show-stopper, or am I wrong?

I would go with the following plan:
1. Push 1-4
2. Resend 5-6 with addressed pointed issues for one more (fast) round

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko