linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: g12a fixes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 06 Feb 2019 19:11:23 -0800
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To:     Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     "open list\:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list\:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list\:ARM\/Amlogic Meson..." 
        <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] pinctrl: meson: g12a fixes

Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2019-01-21 at 14:53 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:23 AM Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > This patchset fixes the initial pinctrl support added for th g12a SoC
>> > family, which is mainly around the register regions claimed by the
>> > driver.
>> > 
>> > Linus, would it possible for you to provide a tag with these changes to
>> > Kevin ?
>> 
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/log/?h=ib-meson-fixes
>> 
>> > ATM, we can only use the devices for which the pinmux is already set by
>> > the bootloader. Enabling the broken pinctrl driver could cause regressions
>> > in kernelCI. Having a tag, would allow us to start using pinctrl on this
>> > SoC in this cycle, w/o regression. It would be nice :)
>> 
>> When you say "this cycle" do you mean I should target fixes (v5.0-rcN)
>> or next (v5.1) with these patches?
>
> I was referring to the 5.1 release but it is a good question, I did not really
> think about 5.0.
>
> Those changes are mainly fixes, so guess it could go in the 5.0 but support
> for this SoC is still in its early stages, so either way is fine by me. 
>
> Whatever is simpler for you I guess ;)

If it's not too late, v5.0-rc is simpler for me as it means not having
to deal with this as a dependency branch/tag.

Kevin