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  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:   Sat, 19 Dec 2020 01:57:39 +0100
From:   Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-K├Ânig 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pwm: Changes for v5.11-rc1

On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:35:09PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 8:04 AM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is a fairly big release cycle from the PWM framework's point of
> > view.
> 
> Why does all of this have commit dates from the last day?
> 
> It clearly cannot have been in linux-next in this form, at least.
> 
> I pulled and then unpulled. Don't send me stuff that hasn't been in
> next without a _lot_ of explanations for why, most certainly not the
> week before Christmas.

I didn't realize that this would show up as all new commits. The reason
why this happens is because the first commit in the tree is a fix for an
issue for which Uwe had sent an alternative patch to you directly for
inclusion in v5.10.

After going over the patches again as I was preparing the pull request,
I realized that the commit message was no longer accurate, so I changed
the commit message of the first commit, which then caused all of the
subsequent patches (i.e. all of them) to be rewritten.

The only change that hasn't been in linux-next for at least a week is a
bugfix I merged two days ago. The rest should be identical except for
the commit message on that first commit.

For reference, here's a diff on my for-next branch that the pull request
is based on, compared to what it was like a week ago:

	$ git diff for-next@...ays}..pwm/for-5.11-rc1
	diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
	index cc1eb0818648..ce5c4fc8da6f 100644
	--- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
	+++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-sun4i.c
	@@ -294,12 +294,8 @@ static int sun4i_pwm_apply(struct pwm_chip *chip, struct pwm_device *pwm,
	 
		ctrl |= BIT_CH(PWM_CLK_GATING, pwm->hwpwm);
	 
	-       if (state->enabled) {
	+       if (state->enabled)
			ctrl |= BIT_CH(PWM_EN, pwm->hwpwm);
	-       } else {
	-               ctrl &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_EN, pwm->hwpwm);
	-               ctrl &= ~BIT_CH(PWM_CLK_GATING, pwm->hwpwm);
	-       }
	 
		sun4i_pwm_writel(sun4i_pwm, ctrl, PWM_CTRL_REG);
	 

And that corresponds to the topmost patch.

I hope this clarifies things, and sorry for not mentioning this in the
pull request.

Thierry

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists