linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Reintroduce i.MX EPIT Timer

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:   Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:05:49 +0200
From:   Clément Péron <peron.clem@...il.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc:     Colin Didier <colin.didier@...ialet.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vladimir_zapolskiy@...tor.com>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Clément Peron <clement.peron@...ialet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] Reintroduce i.MX EPIT Timer

HI Daniel,


On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 17:37, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2018 17:22, Clément Péron wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 17:12, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2018 16:55, Clément Péron wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Is there still some remark against merging this ?
> >>
> >> How do you want this to be merged ?
> >>
> >> Shall I take the two patches related to the timer ? Or Ack them ?
> >
> > I'm not an expert on how submitting patches works, it's the first
> > driver I submit.
>
> Ok, so usually this is what happens when there is a set of changes:
>
>  1.  they all touch the same subsystem (eg. drivers/clocksource), you
> just send all the patches to the maintainer(s) + mailing list + related
> people
>
>  2. they touch different subsystems:
>
>    2.1) the changes are not connected (not related together), you have
> to split in smaller parts and send the patches to the right subsystem
> maintainer (so falling back to 1.)
>
>    2.2) the changes are connected:
>
>       2.2.1) Ask all the different subsystem maintainers to acknowledge
> the changes and submit the patches to arm-soc@
>
>       2.2.2) Ask each maintainer to take their part if the changes are
> connected but not interdependent (patches individually won't break the
> system)
>
>
> You are in the 2.2) situation. My question is do you want 2.2.1) or 2.2.2) ?

Thanks for the explanation, I think in 2.2.1 as I still need an Ack
for the "ARM: dts" patch

Regards,
Clement

>
>
> --
>  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>