linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Clean enabling always-on regulators + their supplies

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: <CAD=FV=XsOSBipZHg+DotyFPOsbLXDoS_rPyv7KRHA50GszbN0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 08:21:52 -0800
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>, masneyb@...tation.org,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: core: Clean enabling always-on regulators +
 their supplies

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 6:06 AM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 06:40:53PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > Can you confirm my patch applies cleanly to your for-next branch?  I
> > can see that it doesn't apply to your 4.21 branch but I can't see it
> > fail on your for-next branch.
>
> No, I tried both and it didn't work on either.

I'm totally confused because I can't reproduce, but OK.


> > The problem is that commit 2bb166636933 ("regulator: core: enable
> > power when setting up constraints") touches the same code but isn't in
> > the 4.21 branch.  If you pick that to your 4.21 then my patch applies
> > cleanly.
>
> > If you'd prefer that I post my patch atop 4.21 I can do that tomorrow.
>
> I'd prefer that you resend like I said :(

If I can't reproduce the merge conflict that you're seeing I'm worried
that I'll just be sending you the exact same patch I sent before and
it'll have the same problem.  That's why I've been so focused on
trying to understand.

In any case it sounds as if sending it up against 4.21 should be fine
and maybe is preferred (since the patch it Fixes is in 4.21), so here
comes v2 against for-4.21.  OK, posted at
<https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181211161720.102888-1-dianders@chromium.org>


-Doug