linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: SD-card GPIO pin set bias-pull up

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: <YLlGseTHHCTDN68V@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:16:33 -0700
From:   Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7180: SD-card GPIO pin set
 bias-pull up

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 01:33:07PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:14 PM Sujit Kautkar <sujitka@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Some SC7180 based board do not have external pull-up for cd-gpio.
> 
> nit: s/board/boards
> 
> Presumably Bjorn could fix this when he applies the patch. I wouldn't
> re-post just for this fix unless Bjorn asks you to.
I can repost this patch again with this fix if required

> FYI: I had my Reviewed-by tag on v2. While you did make changes
> between v2 and v3, in this case I don't think the changes were
> significant enough to warrant removing my Reviewed-by tag and I would
> have been happy if you'd kept it.
> 
> In general, if you ever have questions about whether you should keep
> someone's reviewed tag, it never hurts to mention your logic "after
> the cut" (I think you use patman so this would be "Commit-notes:").
> For instance, you could say this if you removed Reviewed-by tags:
>
It is good to know this.

> I totally recombobulated the frobnication logic in v3 and removed
> previous Reviewed-by tags. Hopefully reviewers can re-add if they
> still think the patch is good.
> 
> ...or, you could say this if you kept them but you weren't totally
> sure it was OK:
> 
> Even though every single line in the v3 patch changed from v2, it's
> only because I fixed a stoopid spelling Mistake. Thus, I kept previous
> Reviewed-by tags. Please yell if you object. Who knew that the only
> acceptable spelling of the English word "stupid" in kerneldoc comments
> was written as "stoopid". Live and learn.
> 
> :-)
> 
> In any case, here's my Reviewed-by tag again. I also agree that
> Bjorn's comments made sense and were good to fix...
> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Thanks for adding review tag again. I intended to keep this tag since
only commit message is updated, but I forgot to add it back while
posting latest version.

-Sujit