linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

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: <CAD=FV=X1E8Cz=L93G-zJwhM0R=N3YuBBhkvCnLvWuxMU9KJkTw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:00:29 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] regulator: add QCOM RPMh regulator driver

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:07 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:50:52AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> ...to this patch.  Speaking of which it might be getting very close to
>> time for this series to land along with David's other series, AKA:
>
>> * [1/2] regulator: of: add property for allowed modes specification
>>   https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10395731/
>
>> * [2/2] regulator: of: add support for allowed modes configuration
>>   https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10395725/
>
> Please do not submit new versions of already applied patches, please
> submit incremental updates to the existing code.  Modifying existing
> commits creates problems for other users building on top of those
> commits so it's best practice to only change pubished git commits if
> absolutely essential.

Sorry, wasn't suggesting making any changes to those two patches, just
was noting the dependency.  ...but, as you said, the two dependent
patches have already landed and I just didn't notice.  :(  Sorry for
the noise.

-Doug