linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: dts: NSP: Fix SP804 compatible node

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]

Message-ID: <98cdc873-e36a-c47d-6eaf-cc4e023f977c@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Sep 2020 02:04:35 +0100
From:   André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] ARM: dts: NSP: Fix SP804 compatible node

On 02/09/2020 00:04, Florian Fainelli wrote:

Hi Florian,

sorry, the mail got swamped in my inbox...

> On 8/28/2020 10:12 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 8/28/20 7:20 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> The DT binding for SP804 requires to have an "arm,primecell" compatible
>>> string.
>>> Add this string so that the Linux primecell bus driver picks the device
>>> up and activates the clock.
>>>
>>> Fixes: a0efb0d28b77 ("ARM: dts: NSP: Add SP804 Support to DT")
>>> Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
>>
>> This looks fine, however there is a ccbtimer1 instance that you missed,
>> can you resubmit with it included?
>>
>> With that:
>>
>> Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> 
> Andre are you going to resubmit a patch with the second instance
> (ccbtimer1) fixed as well, or should I take care of that while applying
> the patch? Either way is fine, just let me know.

So I was waiting for more comments, but there was nothing so far that
justifies a new version. So would you mind fixing this while applying? I
must have indeed missed this instance while diffing before and after.

Many thanks!
Andre.