linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Pad retentions support for Exynos5433

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:   Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:37:29 +0100
From:   Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Pad retentions support for Exynos5433

Hi Linus,

On 2017-01-26 10:50, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@...sung.com> wrote:
>> Patches in this patchset depends on each other. They are order in such a
>> way to make the changes bisectable.
>>
>> Patch #3 has runtime dependency on #1.
>> Patch #5 has runtime dependency on #3.
>> Patch #6 has runtime dependency on #4.
>>
>> This patchset also directly depends on the "Move pad retention control to
>> Exynos pin controller driver" patchset:
>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg556074.html
> Do we *have* to merge it runtime-bisectably?
>
> I'm asking because we need a huge immutable branch
> (I guess in the MFD subsystem) to deal with that.
>
> It'd be great if I could just apply the pinctrl patches in
> isolation, then Lee applies the MFD patches in isolation,
> everything compiles in isolation but maye just work once both
> pinctrl and MFD are merged upstream, as in linux-next
> or Torvalds' tree.

I always thought that it is good to prepare patches in such a way that they
don't break runtime bisectability, especially if this is just a matter of
applying a few patches via the other tree. In this case it will work fine
if MFD patches gets applied with Lee Jones ack via pinctrl tree (I remember
that MFD changes were often applied via the other trees in the past).

> That is one of the reasons why using a system-agnostic
> syscon regmap lookup is so good, BTW.

I've just explained my rationale about the regmap lookup in the separate
mail.

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland