linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] eeprom: use devres for nvmem providers

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, 10 Sep 2018 08:59:50 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Devang Panchal <devang.panchal@...tnautics.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] eeprom: use devres for nvmem providers



On 10/09/18 08:54, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> 2018-09-10 9:50 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>:
>>
>>
>> On 10/09/18 08:44, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
>>>
>>> While working on the nvmem framework recently I noticed that there are
>>> many providers that don't use the devm variant of nvmem_register().
>>> This series contains relevant updates for eeprom drivers.
>>>
>>> Bartosz Golaszewski (2):
>>>     eeprom: eeprom_93xx46: use resource management
>>>     eeprom: at25: use devm_nvmem_register()
>>>
>>>    drivers/misc/eeprom/at25.c          | 3 +--
>>>    drivers/misc/eeprom/eeprom_93xx46.c | 7 ++-----
>>
>>
>> Can you please consider consolidating the devm related changes in a single
>> series, to easy the review!
>>
>>
>>>    2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
> 
> Are you referring to the devm part of the bigger nvmem series? If so:
> no, because the nvmem patches are required by the later patches in
Yes, am referring to that series.
I dont see any reason why lpc and sunxi changes should not be in this 
series? Or there is no implicit reasoning or change log that suggests 
that these have to be part of that series!


--srini

> that series. These two patches are independent and should probably go
> through Greg's tree directly.
> 
> Best regards,
> Bartosz Golaszewski
>