linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: max77693: Allow building as a module

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:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:17:21 +0100
From:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:	Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
Cc:	Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mfd: max77693: Allow building as a module

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 Apr 2016, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > 
> > > The consumer of max77693 regulators on Trats2 board (samsung-usb2-phy
> > > driver) supports deferred probing so the max77693 main MFD driver can be
> > > built now as a module. This gives more flexibility and removes manual
> > > ordering of init calls.
> > > 
> > > Suggested-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> > > Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/Kconfig    |  4 ++--
> > >  drivers/mfd/max77693.c | 14 ++------------
> > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > I assume this can be taken immediately and doesn't depend on anything
> > external to the set?
> > 
> > For my own reference:
> >   Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, this can be taken as is. Only second patch (changing defconfig)
> depends on this. I can take the second patch through samsung tree but
> that would require a tag/branch with this... which looks like an
> overkill. So maybe you would take both?

If I take the defconfig patch without a tag, there will almost
certainly be merge conflicts.  Other solutions include; delaying the
defconfig patch for one cycle or trying to get it in post -rc1.

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog