linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use GPIO lookup table

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: <20180717222259.4145d307@bbrezillon>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:22:59 +0200
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
To:     Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
        Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@...il.com>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: use GPIO lookup table

On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 22:20:00 +0200
Janusz Krzysztofik <jmkrzyszt@...il.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2018 9:37:36 PM CEST Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > ...
> > Sorry, but we can't apply this patch now because of the dependency on
> > those 2 commits. I guess it's not a big issue if we defer it to 4.20.
> > Alternatively, we could consider queuing it to mtd/fixes after 4.19-rc1
> > is out, but we'll need a good reason to do that (like a regression
> > that this patch is supposed to fix). Note for your future contributions:
> > for this kind of cross-subsystem changes, it's better to let everything
> > go through a single tree (usually done by sending all patches in a
> > single series and explaining the dependencies between the patches in
> > the cover letter),  
> 
> Good advice, Sine I have in my queue a patch for OMAP that depends on this 
> one, and still another one with the same dependency issues, I'll take the path 
> you suggest and resend those three as a series to be merged via OMAP.

Sounds good.