linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [Patch v4 1/3] dt-bindings: spi: spi-fsl-qspi: Add ls2080a compatibility string to bindings

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: <20190828212034.GL4298@sirena.co.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 22:20:34 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ashish Kumar <ashish.kumar@....com>,
        "shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kuldeep Singh <kuldeep.singh@....com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [Patch v4 1/3] dt-bindings: spi: spi-fsl-qspi: Add
 ls2080a compatibility string to bindings

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 03:01:15PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:56 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:50:05AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

> > Well, you have been pushing people to change over to using
> > dt-bindings: so I guess you do care :(

> Well, yes. In the absence of any sort of pattern, I have pushed for
> some consistency. And to get rid of subjects like this:

> Documentation/devicetree/bindings: Add the DT binding documentation for foo-bar

> If subsystems are consistent with their own standard as you are, then
> as a maintainer I don't really care. My point was in regard to what
> submitters need to know and follow.

I agree that things should be more consistent.

> > It really does cause me
> > to miss stuff, especially where people don't even include the
> > subsystem name in the header.  I get quite a lot of CCs for

> I can't imagine filtering on subjects will ever be that reliable
> unless we add subject prefixes to MAINTAINERS and have checkpatch
> check commits against those. Filtering on the diffstat is the only
> thing that's kept things to a sane list for me (MAINTAINERS for DT
> used to tag of_* functions which just meant getting copied on *every*
> driver). This is done on the patchwork server side for me, but I
> imagine one could do it on the client side too.

Part of the problem for me here is that stuff that's flagged as just a
binding has a very high chance of being misdirected, I'm unlikely to
have much input unless it's for a driver or subsystem I maintain and I
get a lot of bindings docs for things like other bits of MFDs that have
a regulator on them or where there was some interesting interaction with
one of my subsystems that hasn't yet filtered out of get_maintainers'
view.

The other trick here is that sometimes I am actually being asked about
the thing that I'm getting CCed on so I don't want to actually filter
stuff out of my inbox, it's more of a scoring system thing with lots of
guessing going on.  I say filtering but it's more a strong signal than
strictly a filter.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)