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  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:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 07:25:56 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>
Cc:     Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org>,
        Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, kernel@...labora.com,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/7] mfd / platform: cros_ec: move cros_ec sysfs
 attributes to its own drivers.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2019, Enric Balletbo Serra wrote:
> Missatge de Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> del dia dv., 21 de des.
> 2018 a les 16:39:
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > This is another patchset to try to cleanup a bit more the crossed
> > > references for cros-ec driver between the MFD and the platform/chrome
> > > subsystems.
> > >
> > > The purpose of these patches is get rid of the different cros-ec attributes
> > > from mfd/cros_ec_dev to its own sub-driver in platform/chrome. cros_ec_dev
> > > continues instantiating the sub-devices but the sysfs attributes are owned
> > > by the platform driver.E.g. The lightbar driver should own his sysfs
> > > attributes and be instantiated only if the Embedded Controller has a
> > > lightbar.
> > >
> > > The patchset also adds the documentation of the sysfs attributes.
> > >
> > > Most of the patches touches mfd subsystem and platform/chrome so I'd
> > > suggest go all using and inmutable branch.
> >
> > That's fine.
> >
> > What else needs to happen with this set?
> 
> I think the patchset is ready to be queued. Note that to apply cleanly
> it depends on [1] which is already merged in your for-next branch.
> What do you prefer, go through your repo or go through the
> chrome-platform repo? Do you want Benson or I create an immutable
> branch? I'm fine with whenever you decide.

Probably best if this goes through the MFD tree.

I have a PR pending upstream at the moment.  Once I know what is
happening with that, I'll start taking patches/sets again.

> [1]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/lee/mfd.git/commit/?h=for-mfd-next&id=18e294ddafaeb80a1e2e10c9bd750a6cb8388d5b
> 
> > Any more Acks required?
> >
> 
> I think that you, Guenter, Benson and I are fine with it, so not more
> acks needed.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog

Powered by blists - more mailing lists