linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] clk: bcm2835: Add PWM clock support to the device tree

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, 07 Dec 2015 20:09:47 -0800
From:	Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
To:	Stefan Wahren <info@...egoodbye.de>,
	Remi Pommarel <repk@...plefau.lt>
Cc:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] clk: bcm2835: Add PWM clock support to the device tree

Stefan Wahren <info@...egoodbye.de> writes:

> Hi Remi,
>
> Am 07.12.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Remi Pommarel:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 10:16:25PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>> Hi Remi,
>>>
>>> please send this patch to devicetree@...r.kernel.org.
>>
>> Ok, just to be sure I understand the process here. I should resend a new
>> version of the whole patchset including the devicetree mailing list as
>> recipent. Then the first 3 patches will eventually get pushed by a clock
>> subsystem maintainer. And finally this last patch will be pushed by a
>> devicetree maintainer.
>>
>> Am I right here ?
>
> sorry for the confusion. I mean that you send a copy to 
> devicetree@...r.kernel.org so subscribers have a chance to review.
>
> I'm not sure but according to your subject you suggest that this dts 
> patch should go through clock subsystem which isn't optimal. This should 
> be better applied by Stephen or Eric.

It would be applied by me, but that's for me to worry about, not the
patch submitter.  The subject prefix would be "ARM: bcm2835: ", but
that's trivial for me to fix when applying, not the kind of thing worth
asking for a respin for.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (819 bytes)