linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ARM: dts: exynos5420: add mali dt node and enable mali on Odroid XU3/4

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: <20191112151915.GA15786@kozik-lap>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:19:15 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Marian Mihailescu <mihailescu2m@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, kgene@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ARM: dts: exynos5420: add mali dt node and enable
 mali on Odroid XU3/4

On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:25:27AM +1030, Marian Mihailescu wrote:
> Add device tree node for Mali GPU for Exynos 542x SoC.
> GPU is disabled by default, and is enabled for each board after the
> regulator is defined. Tested on Odroid-XU4.
> 
> Changes since v3:
> - fixed compatible to match bindings
> 
> Changes since v2:
> - separate patch for bindings
> - fixed bindings typo
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - used generic node and label for GPU
> - added bindings for compatible
> - fixed irq indentation
> - fixed interrupt-names to match bindings
> - added cooling cells for future TMU connection
> - used generic node and label for GPU opp table
> - removed always-on from SoC GPU regulator
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marian Mihailescu <mihailescu2m@...il.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi             | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroid-core.dtsi |  6 +++-

Hi,

Unfortunately this does not apply around exynos5422-odroid-core.dtsi.
I think there were no changes to this file in current development cycle
so I am surprised that there are conflicts.

On what version were you basing your patch? Was it tested on latest
kernel? The patches should be based usually on one of:
1. current-rc1 (v5.4-rc1)
2. latest-rc (v5.4-rc7)
3. maintainer's tree (my next/dt or for-next)
4. linux-next

In all other cases the patch would need rebasing and re-testing.

Best regards,
Krzysztof