linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Use OPP API to set clk/perf state

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jun 2020 10:39:48 -0700
From:   Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        agross@...nel.org, robdclark@...il.com, robdclark@...omium.org,
        stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alok Chauhan <alokc@...eaurora.org>,
        Akash Asthana <akashast@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 6/6] spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Use OPP API to set clk/perf
 state

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:15:37PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:09:33AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> > 
> > do you plan to land this in your tree?
> > 
> > I know you hate contentless pings, but since you acked this patch and
> > usually don't seem to do that when patches go through your tree I want
> > to make sure we aren't in a situation where everybody thinks that the
> > patch will go through someone else's tree.
> 
> Aren't there dependencies on earlier patches in the series?

Not to my knowledge. Patch "[2/6] spi: spi-geni-qcom: Use OPP API to set
clk/perf state" depends on a change in 'include/linux/qcom-geni-se.h' made
by "1/6] tty: serial: qcom_geni_serial: Use OPP API to set clk/perf state",
however that's not true for this patch.

I wonder if it would have been better to split this series into individual
patches/mini-series, to avoid this kind of confusion.

> In general if someone acks something for their tree that means they don't
> expect to apply it themselves.

Yes, that was my understanding and prompted me to clarify this with you.

The patch could go through the QCOM tree, but to my knowledge there is no
reason for it.

Btw, the patch "[V8,7/8] spi: spi-qcom-qspi: Add interconnect support"
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11620285/) is in a similar situation.
Another patch of the series for the 'spi-geni-qcom' driver has to go
through the QCOM change due to changes in geni, but the QSPI driver
doesn't use geni and could therefore go through your tree.

Ultimately I don't really care too much through which tree the patches
land as long as you and Bjorn agree on it :)