linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Correct link for sound binding document

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqLCCMg1GeCU0_2-EvGS2FaRq4j1tFqEMswv5QBZ_jr9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:38:14 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: arizona: Correct link for sound binding document

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 1:55 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:46 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:33:22PM +0100, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/arizona.txt | 2 +-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > Applied.
> > >
> > > Probably won't do any harm in this instance, but it's usually better
> > > for MFD binding changes to go through the MFD tree to avoid
> > > merge-conflicts.
> >
> > It had been sitting there for a while, so I picked it up. Plus if we
>
> A little over a week is not 'a while'. :)

You're right. Probably should have waited 2 weeks. Developers
shouldn't have to wait longer than that for a response (according to
the chief penguin).

> > have conflicts within a binding (other than tree wide clean ups I do),
> > that's not a good sign that the binding is changing.
>
> Not sure I understand this.

If there are multiple sets of changes to a single binding within 1
release cycle (more than 1 really IMO), then that is a problem in and
of itself. We may want drivers enhanced feature by feature, but I
don't want bindings to. Bindings shouldn't be evolving. Maybe
sometimes different people add different things, but then they need to
work out the dependencies and conflicts, not you or me.

Rob