linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: update TI tps6105x chip 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]

Date:   Tue, 10 Dec 2019 08:46:43 +0000
From:   Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Jacek Anaszewski <jacek.anaszewski@...il.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Grigoryev Denis <grigoryev@...twel.ru>,
        Axel Lin <axel.lin@...ics.com>, Dan Murphy <dmurphy@...com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] dt-bindings: mfd: update TI tps6105x chip bindings

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, Lee Jones wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Dec 2019, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> 
> > Hi Lee, thank you for the review.
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:32 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tree: next-20191118
> > >
> > > Why is this in your commit message?
> > 
> > I have been posting patches against various maintainer trees lately, which
> > will not apply to mainline or next. So I have been including base tree
> > information in the patch itself.
> > 
> > Base-tree info on patches is high on developers' wish list, but not yet
> > standardized. This was discussed at the 2019 kernel maintainers
> > summit:
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/803619/
> 
> NB: I haven't seen this discussion (or opened this link just yet).
> 
> It's no problem to have it in the submission, but it would be better
> to have it *below* the '--' with the diff, such that if it is applied,
> it doesn't end up in the kernel's Git history.

Obviously that was meant to be '---'.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog