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:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 18:39:22 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <>
To:     Thierry Reding <>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <>,
        Jonathan Hunter <>,
        Georgi Djakov <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Michael Turquette <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>,
        Peter De Schrijver <>,
        MyungJoo Ham <>,
        Kyungmin Park <>,
        Chanwoo Choi <>,
        Mikko Perttunen <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Peter Geis <>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 17/47] dt-bindings: memory: tegra20: Add memory client

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 06:26:05PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 07:48:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > Each memory client has unique hardware ID, add these IDs.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Rob Herring <>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <>
> > ---
> >  include/dt-bindings/memory/tegra20-mc.h | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+)
> Is there any chance you could drop these dt-bindings include patches
> (17, 18 and 19) so that I can pick them up into the Tegra tree? The
> device tree changes that I was going to pick up depend on this and
> fail to build if applied as-is.
> I was looking at your linux-mem-ctrl tree and had initially thought I
> could just pull in one of the branches to get these dependencies, but it
> looks like the dt-bindings patches are on the for-v5.11/tegra-mc branch,
> which the ARM SoC maintainers wouldn't like to see me pull in for a
> dependency on device tree changes.

Partially you answered here. :) Since you should not pull my branch into
a DT branch, you also should not put these include/dt-bindings patches
there.  SoC guys will complain about this as well.

These patches are also needed for the driver, so if you take them, I
would need them back in a pull request. SoC folks could spot it as well
and point that such merge should not happen.

> If this is all fixed at this point, I'll just have to push back the
> device tree changes to v5.12, or perhaps see if the ARM SoC maintainers
> are willing to take a late pull request that's based on v5.11-rc1.

Yeah, that's a known problem. I asked about this Arnd and Olof in the
past and got reply with two solutions:
1. Apply current version of patch without defines, just hard-coded
   numbers. After merging to Linus, replace the numbers with defines.

2. Wait with DTS till dependencies reach Linus.

Best regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists