linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Devicetree updates for 4.20

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: <CAL_JsqLgbGDHPFp2kW2tRT3iQwV9dU+NRVB4YzoS-7p+9GZHnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Oct 2018 07:44:31 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To:     Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Devicetree updates for 4.20

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:25 AM Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:07 AM Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Linus,
> >
> > Please pull DT updates for 4.20. A bit bigger than normal as I've been
> > busy this cycle. There's a few things with dependencies and a few
> > things subsystem maintainers didn't pick up, so I'm taking them thru
> > my tree. The fixes from Johan didn't get into linux-next, but they've
> > been waiting for some time now and they are what's left of what
> > subsystem maintainers didn't pick up. There's no conflicts yet with
> > your tree, but there are 2 conflicts I'm aware of. One is with the c6x
> > tree and the other is in drivers/soc/qcom/apr.c. The correct
> > resolutions are in linux-next.
> >
> [...]
>
> >       scripts/dtc: Update to upstream version v1.4.7-14-gc86da84d30e4
>
> This update made dtc spit out a large number of warnings on a regular
> build, due to a new requirement that a SPI node is named "spi". Seems
> like an arbitrary restriction, but either way can the warning please
> be disabled by default until them cleaned up so we don't have a bunch
> of noise in the logs?

All the fixes are sitting in your tree. :)

Rob