linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] dt-bindings: arm: mstar: Add binding details for mstar,pmsleep

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, 29 Jul 2020 21:34:24 +0900
From:   Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] dt-bindings: arm: mstar: Add binding details for mstar,pmsleep

Hi Arnd,

On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 21:14, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > Does calling it "mstar,pmsleepv7" make more sense? I'm not sure what
> > to call it really.
>
> Use the name of the oldest chip you know that supports it in there,
> such as "mstar,msc313-pmsleep" if this one is specific to msc313.

That makes sense. I think the original patch got merged to soc/arm/newsoc.
Should I recreate the series or create a new patch to do the corrections?

Slightly off topic but I'm working on the series for the interrupt controller
and I've just renamed it from mstar,msc313e-intc to mstar,v7intc.
I originally called it msc313e because I only knew of that chip but the
same controller is present at the same place in all of the chips so far.
I guess I should probably rename it to mstar,msc313-intc to keep with
the first chip it appeared in pattern?

Thanks,

Daniel