linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: add generated clock driver

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:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:40:48 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	Josh Wu <josh.wu@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: add generated clock driver

Le 18/06/2015 09:54, Paul Bolle a écrit :
> Hi Nicolas,
> 
> On Thu, 2015-06-18 at 09:40 +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> I am in the process, with my colleagues, of building bricks for our
>> upcoming SoC the sama5d2. So, the basic support for this chip will come
>> in the next weeks and will select this Kconfig option.
> 
> Perhaps that could be added, say below the --- marker in the patch.

Yep, I should have added that, for sure!

> Maybe I missed something to that effect. Anyhow, I didn't spot in the
> patch that this was done deliberately. It had all the looks of a silly
> mistake.
> 
>> I'd like though that this matter of fact doesn't block this piece of
>> code from being reviewed or even better merged in order to ease this new
>> SoC landing...
> 
> The other side of that is that the sama5d2 might never make it, or take
> very long to make it, into mainline. And this would then end up being
> yet another chunk of code adding no value to mainline.

C'mon Paul, it's a simple chicken and egg problem... I have several
options here:

1/ I send the clock patch early and benefit from early review and a
comfortable landing strip

2/ I send the SoC early and have the very same remark concerning the
"+       select HAVE_AT91_GENERATED" line in my patch

3/ I do it in several separated series... but at the price of additional
synchronization between subsystems, additional dumb patches with so
little benefit in my opinion.

Ok, so I post sama5d2 early support today so that we can agree it's not
necessary to add superfluous steps.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/