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  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:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:17:29 +0800
From:   Jisheng Zhang <>
To:     Mark Brown <>
Cc:     Liam Girdwood <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Saravanan Sekar <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] regulator: mp886x: implement set_ramp_delay

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:05:13 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 05:10:51PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > Implement the .set_ramp_delay for MP8867 and MP8869. MP8867 and MP8869
> > could share the implementation, the only difference is the slew_rates
> > array.  
> This doesn't apply against current code, please check and resend.

I found the reason, the three patches in v2 were applied to for-next tree.
Should I renew patches based on for-next? Since the "mps,switch-frequency"
binding isn't released and used, I think I can send new patches to convert
mps,switch-frequency to mps,switch-frequency-hz.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists