linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: update sustainable-power with abstract scale

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:43:58 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        amitk@...nel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: thermal: update
 sustainable-power with abstract scale

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:30 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> Update the documentation for the binding 'sustainable-power' and allow
> to provide values in an abstract scale. It is required when the cooling
> devices use an abstract scale for their power values.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
> ---
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> This is a fixed patch for DT binding, which now passes the
> make dt_binding_check (I have changed tabs into spaces).
> The former patch error that I have received is here [1].
>
> Regards,
> Lukasz
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20201002114426.31277-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com/T/#md4b02a3ada592df67446566180643ba56788c159

...and because I suspect you might not look at any patches that fail
your auto-checker, I'd appreciate it if you could comment on the
discussion on the previous version of the patch.  Thanks!  :-)

-Doug