linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] arm64: zynqmp: Add DDRC node

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:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 14:45:14 +0100
From:   Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>
CC:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        Manish Narani <manish.narani@...inx.com>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <mark.rutland@....com>, <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>, <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        <leoyang.li@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 5/6] arm64: zynqmp: Add DDRC node

On 05. 11. 18 14:42, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:32:55PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> you don't have that HW anyway.
> 
> Grrr, I'm not talking about me - I'm talking about people testing
> linux-next. And perhaps in this particular case it won't matter because
> this hw is not shipping yet or whatever but the question is about the
> principle of the whole thing.
>
>> I looked at v10 and I can't see your ack there. Can you please give me
>> a link?
> 
> I'm talking about *other* patches for another driver.
> 
> Please note that I'm replying to this thread as an example - the
> procedural question I have is not only related to the synopsys changes
> but the synopsys changes are a good example for the problem of EDAC
> changes being sent to me along with DT additions.
> 
> As such, the question was aimed more at arm-soc people - that's why they
> were in To: - not at you.

ok. Got it.

M