linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc 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:	Tue, 8 Mar 2016 16:06:09 +0000
From:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:	André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the arm-soc
 tree

Hi Andre,

On 08/03/16 15:52, André Przywara wrote:
> On 07/03/16 11:04, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Wim,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>
>>    arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>>    d11a89796678 ("arm64: dts: split Foundation model dts to put the GIC separately")
>>
>> from the arm-soc tree and commit:
>>
>>    fe3a97e8ed02 ("ARM64: add SBSA Generic Watchdog device node in foundation-v8.dts")
>>
>> from the watchdog tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
>> is required).
>
> But unfortunately this is the wrong solution. The watchdog DT node
> belongs into the (newly created) common foundation-v8.dtsi, not into the
> GICv2-only .dts.
> So whoever now provides the watchdog patch, can it be rebased on top of
> the foundation model .dts rework, so that the new node ends up in the
> .dtsi file?
> If this is too much hassle I could also send a fix after -rc1 (as the
> breakage is not really critical).
>

I have rebased it on top of my earlier PR and sending it shortly.
I have moved it to dtsi file.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep