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 11:12:45 -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 07:00:05PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:55:36AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:44:17PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Wait, so *some* of the series should go together but not other bits?
> > > But you want them split up for some reason?
> 
> > Yes, this will almost certainly be the case, even if not for this patch.
> > I brought this up earlier (https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11604623/#23428709).
> 
> I'm not really reading any of this stuff for the series as a whole, as
> far as I could tell I'd reviewed all my bits and was hoping whatever
> random platform stuff needs sorting out was going to be sorted out so I
> stopped getting copied on revisions :(

Sorry this caused you extra work, I only fully realized this when the series
was basically ready to land :(

Avoiding unnecessary revision spam is another good reason to not combine
technically unrelated patches in a single series.

If I notice similar series in the future I'll try to bring it up early.

> > For the QSPI patch you could argue to just take it through QCOM since the SPI
> > patch of this series goes through this tree, up to you, I just want to make
> > sure everybody is on the same page.
> 
> If there are some part of this that don't have a connection with the
> rest of the series and should be applied separately please split them
> out and send them separately so it's clear what's going on.

Rajendra, IIUC you have to re-spin this series anyway, please split it
up in self-contained chunks.