linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs

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: <20200530181442.GC2870@furthur.local>
Date:   Sat, 30 May 2020 20:14:42 +0200
From:   Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@...sk>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:52:44PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:13:47AM +0200, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > chained to this message is a second version of remaining patches from the
> > first spin of the "DT: Improve validation for Marvell SoCs" [1] patch set.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200317093922.20785-1-lkundrak@v3.sk/
> > 
> > I've attempted to address the review of the v1, each patch includes a
> > detailed change log.
> > 
> > Compared to v1, wherever the license or maintainer information was
> > missing, I've filled in GPL-2.0-only and people listed in MAINTAINERS
> > file. As I've indicated in v1 cover letter, am not sure whether this is
> > the optimal course of action. However I've included the relevant people
> > in v1 Cc list and asked for clarifications, but didn't really get any
> > feedback to that.
> 
> Find someone that would care if the bindings are deleted. I'm fine 
> if you put yourself. Maybe subsystem maintainers are willing to take 
> orphans. I really only want my name on common things.

Thanks for clarification & fixups to the patches.

I'm wondering if Documentation/devicetree/writing-schema.rst could
perhaps be made a bit clearer about how the maintainer key in a binding
document is different from what is in the MAINTAINERS file.

> Rob

Lubo