linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 17/47] dt-bindings: memory: tegra20: Add memory client IDs

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]

Message-ID: <20201126180643.GA18074@kozik-lap>
Date:   Thu, 26 Nov 2020 19:06:43 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@...il.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 17/47] dt-bindings: memory: tegra20: Add memory client
 IDs

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 07:02:55PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> 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 <robh@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  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
> problematic.

Indeed, that way could work... and no one would spot it. :) Many times
these headers were for clock symbols so if they go via SoC/DT tree,
merge back to clock tree could be accepted.

Best regards,
Krzysztof