linux-kernel - Re: linusw/devel bisection: baseline.bootrr.mediatek-mt8173-pinctrl-probed on mt8173-elm-hana

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: <CACRpkdbb84M4k-te0uwfDxX4PR05Z=SXZC8nM_HH=GbkNoCf7A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Dec 2020 21:52:41 +0100
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernelci-results@...ups.io" <kernelci-results@...ups.io>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Collabora Kernel ML <kernel@...labora.com>,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...nel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linusw/devel bisection: baseline.bootrr.mediatek-mt8173-pinctrl-probed
 on mt8173-elm-hana

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 6:30 PM Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
> On 16/12/2020 12:41, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:10 AM Guillaume Tucker
> > <guillaume.tucker@...labora.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> It seems we need to teach the core to ignore the name (empty string).
> >>
> >> OK great, I see you've sent a patch for that.  I'll check if we
> >> can confirm it fixes the issue (something I'd like to also
> >> automate...).
> >
> > Yups would love to hear if this solves it, it should be in today's
> > -next.
>
> Yes in fact it appears to be all fixed on your for-next branch:
>
>   https://kernelci.org/test/case/id/5fda32f92738afa48dc94ce1/

We found other problems with my rushed patches so I pulled them
out anyways, I will tighten them up and make a better job for
the next kernel cycle.

Thanks for your help!

Yours,
Linus Walleij