linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: g12a fixes

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, 21 Jan 2019 16:36:08 +0100
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
Cc:     "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson..." <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: g12a fixes

On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 14:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
> 
> > This patchset fixes the initial pinctrl support added for th g12a SoC
> > family, which is mainly around the register regions claimed by the
> > driver.
> > 
> > Linus, would it possible for you to provide a tag with these changes to
> > Kevin ?
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=ib-meson-fixes
> 
> > ATM, we can only use the devices for which the pinmux is already set by
> > the bootloader. Enabling the broken pinctrl driver could cause regressions
> > in kernelCI. Having a tag, would allow us to start using pinctrl on this
> > SoC in this cycle, w/o regression. It would be nice :)
> 
> When you say "this cycle" do you mean I should target fixes (v5.0-rcN)
> or next (v5.1) with these patches?

I was referring to the 5.1 release but it is a good question, I did not really
think about 5.0.

Those changes are mainly fixes, so guess it could go in the 5.0 but support
for this SoC is still in its early stages, so either way is fine by me. 

Whatever is simpler for you I guess ;)

> 
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij