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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 10:13:36 +0200 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> Cc: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>, openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>, Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@...il.com>, linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>, "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, Avi Fishman <avifishman70@...il.com>, Patrick Venture <venture@...gle.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tali Perry <tali.perry1@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, "Chia-Wei, Wang" <chiawei_wang@...eedtech.com>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/21] ipmi: Allow raw access to KCS devices On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 6:09 AM Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 23:47, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021, at 21:44, Corey Minyard wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:27:46AM +0930, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > > There were some minor concerns that were unanswered, and there really > > > was no review by others for many of the patches. > > > > Right; I was planning to clean up the minor concerns once I'd received > > some more feedback. I could have done a better job of communicating > > that :) > > I'll merge the first five through the aspeed tree this coming merge > window. We have acks from the relevant maintainers. > > Arnd: would you prefer that this come as it's own pull request, or as > part of the device tree branch? When you are unsure, it's almost never wrong to go for a separate branch, which gives you a chance to have a concise description of the contents in the tag. This would be particularly helpful if there are incompatible changes to the DT binding that require a justification. If you are only adding a few DT nodes to existing files, then merging these through the regular branch is probably easier. Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists