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=WYcCVjAiMpzf4zyAByw5y-oDMnuabip1HXqa-mQFRt2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 09:28:03 -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 Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:15:14AM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
>> I think he's still planning on re-shuffling his tree a bit.  When he
>> does this, do you need him to put the RPMh patches somewhere you can
>> merge into your tree?
>
> Well, I *think* there's no actual dependency here since it's a new
> driver with a Kconfig dependency.  It really just needs me to get round
> to trawling through what's a fairly large patch with a troubled history
> now you've reviewed it.

OK, great.  I guess I'm confused about the "|| COMPILE_TEST" causing
problems then?  I was worried that anyone trying to do "COMPILE_TEST"
on your tree (or linuxnext if RPMh isn't there) would get failures due
to the lack of header files.  I guess if it's a problem you could just
gut the "|| COMPILE_TEST" and it could be added back in later?

Hoping my reviews saved you time overall.

-Doug