linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 0/6] support a new type of PMIC,including two chips(rk817 and rk809)

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]

Message-ID: <2084806.DiqCa91xLP@phil>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 10:18:54 +0200
From:   Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Tony Xie <tony.xie@...k-chips.com>, broonie@...nel.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chenjh@...k-chips.com,
        xsf@...k-chips.com, zhangqing@...k-chips.com,
        huangtao@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 0/6] support a new type of PMIC,including two chips(rk817 and rk809)

Hi Lee,

Am Mittwoch, 26. Juni 2019, 13:52:51 CEST schrieb Lee Jones:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, Tony Xie wrote:
> 
> > Most of functions and registers of the rk817 and rk808 are the same,
> > so they can share allmost all codes.
> > 
> > Their specifications are as follows:
> >   1) The RK809 and RK809 consist of 5 DCDCs, 9 LDOs and have the same
> > registers
> >      for these components except dcdc5.
> >   2) The dcdc5 is a boost dcdc for RK817 and is a buck for RK809.
> >   3) The RK817 has one switch but The Rk809 has two.
> 
> Just tried to apply this set to a v5.2-rc1 base, but it doesn't seem
> to do so cleanly.  Would you be able to rebase and resend please?

I took the liberty of rebasing patch 3 accordingly and sent it as reply
to the original patch3 as (v10.1). The other patches did apply cleanly
after that.


Heiko