linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Documentation: DT: Consolidate SP805 binding docs

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:   Wed, 27 Jun 2018 11:47:21 -0700
From:   Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To:     Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] Documentation: DT: Consolidate SP805 binding docs



On 6/27/2018 11:42 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 11:38:48AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/27/2018 11:33 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Ray Jui wrote:
>>>> Hi Guenter/Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Kindly let me know how you want to proceed with this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly, the patch series does not add a new problem
>>> but merely exposes one. Is my recollection correct ? If so, maybe
>>> we should just add a note somewhere indicating what might be wrong
>>> and otherwise apply the series.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense ?
>>
>> Yes this makes a lot of sense to me. This patch series exposes potential
>> problems in some SoCs that they might not be feeding the correct clock into
>> WDT, at least based on clock names from their DT entries.
>>
>> This patch series does not change/affect how SP805 works on those systems.
>>
>> Where should the note be added?
>>
> 
> I would suggest to add a note into the driver where the clock is used,
> with the details discussed here.

I assume you meant adding the notes to the SP805 driver where the clock 
is used.

If so, I think that makes sense. That notes deserves its own patch 
because it really has nothing to do with any of the change in this patch 
series.

Do you want me to 1) embed that patch into this patch series and send 
out v5; or 2) leave the patch series as it is and send out a separate 
patch to add the notes to the driver?

Thanks.

> 
> Does this make sense ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Guenter
>