linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 0/4]: spmi: pmic-arb: support for V5 HW and bug fixes

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]

Message-ID: <20170718221709.GA18179@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:17:09 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:     Kiran Gunda <kgunda@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/4]: spmi: pmic-arb: support for V5 HW and bug fixes

On 07/18, Kiran Gunda wrote:
> v4: 
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: add support for HW version 5
>       Clean-up as per Stephen's comments
> 
> v3:
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: add support for HW version 5
>     Modified #define INVALID     (-1) to
>     #define INVALID_EE    0xFF.
> 
> v2:
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: return __iomem pointer instead of offset
>       Added Stephen's reviewed-by tag.
> 
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: fix a possible null pointer dereference
>       Added Stephen's reviewed-by tag.
> 
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: add support for HW version 5
>       Modified the pmic_arb_offset_v5 function to return the offset instead
>       of passed by a pointer.
> 
>     * spmi: pmic-arb: Remove checking opc value not less than 0
>       Added Stephen's reviewed-by tag.
>       Added my sign-off tag.
> 
> v1:
> 
> This patch series add the support for pmic arbiter hardware v5 along with
> the few bug fixes and code cleanup.
> 
> This patch series is dependent on the below patches and can be merged
> cleanly only after picking the below patches in to the tree.

Can you combine the two series? It's really confusing why there
are two patch series from you for the same driver. Presumably one
of the series needs to be applied before the other, so putting
them into one series makes that clear what the order is.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project