linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

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: <yw1xd1t8w0ps.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jan 2016 16:16:31 +0000
From:	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
	"Yang\, Wenyou" <Wenyou.Yang@...el.com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: atmel: improve internal vs gpio chip-select choice

Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:01:42PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> The driver currently chooses between internal chip-select or gpio
>> based on the existence of the cs-gpios DT property which fails on
>> non-DT systems and also enforces the same choice for all devices.
>
> Normally you shouldn't send incremental patches against patches that
> have already been applied.

Should or shouldn't?

> However in this case I'm going to drop your original patch anyway due
> to the issue that was found so it's OK.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed it was already applied.  Too many trees to keep
track of.

-- 
Måns Rullgård