linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "usb: dwc3: exynos: Add support for Exynos5422 suspend clk"

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, 23 Jun 2020 11:20:15 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "usb: dwc3: exynos: Add support for Exynos5422
 suspend clk"

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 09:46, Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This reverts commit 07f6842341abe978e6375078f84506ec3280ece5.
>
> Since SCLK_SCLK_USBD300 suspend clock need to be configured
> for phy module, I wrongly mapped this clock to DWC3 code.
>
> Cc: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c | 9 ---------
>  1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)

But why was this patch applied in the first place? It did not pass the
review. For the v3 I replied:
"This patchset should not be applied. As of now, it is not needed and
not justified."
There were no acks and no positive reviews.

My comments from previous versions of this patchset were not properly addressed.

So here - yes, makes sense to revert it as it should have never been applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof