linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] TQMx86: TQMx110EB and TQMxE40x MFD/GPIO support

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <be0f9d179f0adcc13f46c0b8d36bec78fa99c2e6.camel@ew.tq-group.com>
Date:   Mon, 05 Jul 2021 09:13:02 +0200
From:   Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] TQMx86: TQMx110EB and TQMxE40x MFD/GPIO support

On Fri, 2021-07-02 at 15:41 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 02:23:46PM +0200, Matthias Schiffer wrote:
> > Updated patch series:
> > 
> > - A number of new patches (more hardware support and a few fixes)
> > - Patches 1-3 have gained Fixes tags
> > - Patch 2 depends on 1, so maybe we can push the GPIO patch through the
> >   MFD tree to keep them together?
> > - The change in patch 7 was somewhat controversial. I've added a
> >   warning, but it is the last patch of the series, so it doesn't affect
> >   the rest of the series if it is rejected.
> 
> Hi Matthias
> 
> Nice to see the vendor involved. That does not happen enough.
> 
> Please split these into fixes and new features. They go into different
> trees, so splitting them makes it easier for the maintainers.
> 
> I would also suggest splitting the patches per subsystem, and send
> them to the specific subsystem maintainer. The exception would be when
> there is cross subsystem dependencies.
> 
>      Andrew

Hi Andrew,

thanks for the quick review.

As mentioned in the cover letter, patch 2 depends on 1, so I think it
would make sense to push all through the MFD tree, including the GPIO
fix.

I guess patches 5 and 6 would be covered by the "new device IDs and
quirks" rule of the stable kernel rules. Does that mean they should
also go through the "fixes" rather than the "next" branch, making 4 and
7 the only ones for "next"?

Should I add "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" to all patches for the
"fixes" tree?

Kind regards,
Matthias