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 10:15:53 +0100
From:   Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Enric Balletbo Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>
Cc:     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.

Hi Lee,

On 9/1/19 8:25, Lee Jones wrote:
> 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.
> 

Sounds good to me, thanks
 Enric

> 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.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists