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 19:02:55 +0100
From:   Thierry Reding <>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <>
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 06:39:22PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

What I've done occasionally in the past was to put these kinds of
patches into a separate "dt-bindings" branch that I could use to resolve
dependencies from device tree files. The ARM SoC maintainers never had
any issues with that approach.

I guess this is a bit of a special case, because the DT includes are
ultimately really a part of the device tree, so mixing them both isn't


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists