linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] drm/rockchip: sort registers define by chip's number

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, 23 Aug 2016 09:13:33 -0400
From:   Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>
To:     Mark yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com>
Cc:     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM Kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] drm/rockchip: sort registers define by chip's number

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Mark yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> On 2016年08月23日 04:30, Sean Paul wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Mark yao <mark.yao@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016年08月18日 17:11, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 05:08:14PM +0800, Mark yao wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Sean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for send v3 patch for rk3399 vop support.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But sorry for that, I had changed my mind, those patches are
>>>>>> deprecated,
>>>>>> I have new rk3399 patch on my downstream kernel, I will upstream soon.
>>>>
>>>> Wut? Imo merge Sean's patch here, and then rebase your downstream
>>>> patches
>>>> on top of it. That you have a downstream tree which is out of sync with
>>>> upstream shouldn't be a reason to stall upstream development.
>>>> -Daniel
>>>>
>>> Yeah, Sorry for that.
>>>
>>> In fact, on my downstream kernel, also have those patches, my new rk3399
>>> patches are based on them,
>>> but the new rk3399 patches will cover the those patches,  Sean's patches
>>> is
>>> old version.
>>>
>>> I just want to fast forward, don't want to send two version drivers to
>>> upstream.
>>> but if you and Dave feel ok for that, I have no problem:-) .
>>>
>>> merged Sean's patches and then apply new version patches.
>>>
>> Ok, so can I get a review/ack for these revised patches then?
>> Something is better than nothing, and there's a bunch of stuff that
>> depends on these changes.
>>
>> Sean
>
> Yes, But I miss your [PATCH v3 0/5] and [PATCH v3 4/5]. do you mean the lost
> patches use v2 version?
>

Yes, v2 4/5 was reviewed as-is, so I just applied it.

Sean

>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ｍark Yao
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ｍark Yao
>
>