linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 9/9] arm64: Update device tree for Layerscape SoCs

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:   Mon, 29 Aug 2016 16:33:50 +0800
From:   Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     York Sun <york.sun@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        yangbo lu <yangbo.lu@...escale.com>,
        Liu Gang <Gang.Liu@....com>, morbidrsa@...il.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...escale.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, stuart.yoder@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oss@...error.net,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Rajesh Bhagat <rajesh.bhagat@...escale.com>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Mingkai Hu <Mingkai.Hu@...escale.com>,
        Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>, Yuan Yao <yao.yuan@....com>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 9/9] arm64: Update device tree for Layerscape SoCs

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:05:30AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 02:34:48PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > Is it mandatory to have DTS changes go with driver part altogether?
> 
> Yes, because the EDAC driver needs them to even load properly.

When separate branches get merged on Linus tree, it works anyway.

> 
> > Otherwise, I prefer to have them go through separate tree.
> 
> Any particular reason why you prefer that?

To avoid potential merge conflicts.  Unless there are hard dependencies
like making it compile, avoiding regression or maintaining bisect,
patches should go through their established subsystem/architecture tree.

> We've been doing this for other ARM EDAC drivers already and there were
> no issues whatsoever.

Luckily.  If there are many patches on architecture DT branch changing
the same file, when driver branch and DT branch merges in upstream
branch, there will likely be merge conflicts.

Shawn