netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] net: ethernet: faraday: To support device tree usage.

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, 8 Feb 2017 19:59:50 +0800
From:   Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] net: ethernet: faraday: To support device tree usage.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:09:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:34 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > > From: Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:46:14 +0800
> > >> We also use the same binding document to describe the same faraday ethernet
> > >> controller and add faraday to vendor-prefixes.txt.
> > >
> > > Why are you renaming the MOXA binding file instead of adding a completely new one
> > > for faraday?  The MOXA one should stick around, I don't see a justification for
> > > removing it.
> >
> > This was my suggestion, basically fixing the name of the existing
> > binding, which was
> > accidentally named after one of the users rather than the company that did the
> > hardware.
> >
> > We can't change the compatible string, but I'd much prefer having only
> > one binding
> > file for this device rather than two separate ones that could possibly become
> > incompatible in case we add new properties to them. If there is only
> > one of them,
> > naming it according to the hardware design is the general policy.
> >
> > Note that we currently have two separate device drivers, but that is more a
> > historic artifact, and if we ever get around to merging them into one driver,
> > that should not impact the binding.
>
> The change is fine with me, but the subject and commit message need some
> work.

Hi, Rob:

Would you please advise me of the proper subject and commit messages?
Thanks~