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  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:	Fri, 26 Dec 2014 12:11:42 -0800
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Valentin Rothberg <valentinrothberg@...il.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] mfd: qcom-rpm: Driver for the Qualcomm RPM

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>

Hi Paul

[..]
>
> The Qualcomm RPM regulator driver (see Kconfig symbol
> REGULATOR_QCOM_RPM) was added in v3.18. It depends on the above symbol,
> so it has not yet gotten build coverage. Even manual hacks like
>     make -C ../.. M=$PWD CONFIG_REGULATOR_QCOM_RPM=m qcom_rpm-regulator.ko
>
> won't work for that driver, because it includes linux/mfd/qcom_rpm.h,
> which is not part of the tree.
>

Correct, but unfortunately Lee Jones awaits devicetree maintainers ack
(or any comment) and have been doing so for months now. I did send out
a ping a few weeks ago, but might have done so when they where
occupied by the merge window.


Lee, the Qualcomm RPM binding is not for a subsystem and is limited to
Qualcomm devices. Could we apply this in accordance with II.2 in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt or is there
anything I could do to make you feel comfortable doing so?

> It seems there's no generally agreed upon guideline for situations like
> this. So I guess it's up to Mark to decide how long the tree should
> include an unbuildable driver.
>

I haven't seen any guidelines, but appreciate Mark's way of working in
this matter - as we've been able to run our devices with fewer
out-of-tree patches.

Regards,
Bjorn
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists