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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:20:21 +0530
From:   kgunda@...eaurora.org
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/4]: spmi: pmic-arb: support for V5 HW and bug fixes

On 2017-07-19 03:47, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.
I had two series just to give the information about the fix-up patches 
for the
previously merged patches and other new patches. Anyways, having a 
single series will
be easy and clear to everyone. Will combine them.