linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V7 2/8] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024

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: <56AF2243.50305@nvidia.com>
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 2016 14:45:47 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, <kbuild-all@...org>,
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <pawel.moll@....com>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
	<ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>, <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	<linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <gnurou@...il.com>,
	<broonie@...nel.org>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
	<swarren@...dia.com>, <treding@...dia.com>,
	<k.kozlowski@...sung.com>, <vreddytalla@...dia.com>,
	Mallikarjun Kasoju <mkasoju@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/8] mfd: max77620: add core driver for MAX77620/MAX20024


On Monday 01 February 2016 02:32 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>
>> On Monday 01 February 2016 01:55 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>
>>>> This depends on patch
>>>> [PATCH V2] mfd: core: add macro for adding mfd cells
>>>>
>>>> and due to absence of this patch, it reports the error.
>>> If you have dependencies, why aren't they in this set?
>>>
>> This change is not related to the series as such and so independent.
>> I just thought that mentioning on commit log will be fine here. May
>> be I missed some points here.
> If you have patches which use/depend on it, then it's not so
> independent, right?

Hmm.. true. I had different thought that the core header is independent 
as it does not depends on other but this series dependent which depends 
on core header. Seems something I missed.
Idea was to review md header independently and used on this series.



>> Let me know if I need to add this to back on series.
>   
> In order to avoid any mishaps, that would be preferable, yes.
>
I will respin this series to V8 once I will have change from you per 
discussion on other email.