linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by adding retries

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]

Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wf=hdggX-Z1gtiVJdwr7jwjY1owCVZDq_BrWOyj-3m3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:34:47 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
	AJAY KUMAR RAMAKRISHNA SHYMALAMMA <ajaykumar.rs@...sung.com>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Michael Spang <spang@...omium.org>,
	Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] regulator: tps65090: Make FETs more reliable by
 adding retries

Mark,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:25:24AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> An issue was discovered with tps65090 where sometimes the FETs
>> wouldn't actually turn on when requested (they would report
>> overcurrent).  The most problematic FET was the one used for the LCD
>
> Please don't send new patches as replies in the middle of threads, it
> makes it confusing trying to work out which versions of things should be
> applied.

I'm a little confused about what I did wrong.  Can you give more details?

* V1 had 3 patches plus a cover letter.

* I was asked to split two patches, so V2 has 5 patches plus a cover letter.

* My v2 series was all "in reply to" the v1 cover letter, which I
thought was best practice.

* All of my v2 patches were marked with v2 and included changes
between v1 and v2.

* Everyone was CCed on the cover letter.  Only appropriate people were
CCed on the individual patches (as per get_maintainer, automated by
patman).

* All patches were resent at v2.


If I had to answer your question, I'd say that you should now
completely ignore v1 and look at v2.

-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/