linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for Mediatek cpufreq HW driver

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: <20201023082817.5vp4cvi2lmpaozcn@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:58:17 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Hector Yuan <hector.yuan@...iatek.com>
Cc:     linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@...com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wsd_upstream@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for Mediatek
 cpufreq HW driver

On 23-10-20, 16:24, Hector Yuan wrote:
> This patchset includes 6 patches and depends on the MT6779 DTS patch[1] submitted by Hanks Chen.
> The first 3 patches are for CPUFREQ HW driver and device tree binding, which are already sent before separately [2][3]. For binding part, I add a new patch to add property in cpu schema.
> Besides, we add three more patches including EM power table, SVS CPU initialize, and cooling device.

And even after so many versions of these you chose to name this V1. It
is very difficult for reviewers to find time to review your stuff, and
they expect some sort of summary from you on what exactly changed from
last version and you also need to name the current version currently.

This should have been V8 and you should have added a "V7->V8 diff:"
section here, naming all the changes you did. Please send that as
reply to this email, so I can see what really changed.

-- 
viresh