linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: at91: add register definition for sama7g5's master clock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <162734874941.2368309.7238828348099448826@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jul 2021 18:19:09 -0700
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To:     Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        ludovic.desroches@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com
Cc:     eugen.hristev@...rochip.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: at91: add register definition for sama7g5's master clock

Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2021-07-19 05:46:00)
> On 19/07/2021 at 10:03, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> > Add register definitions for SAMA7G5's master clock. These would be
> > also used by architecture specific power saving code.
> > 
> > Fixes: 6cb0e54412a3 ("ARM: at91: pm: add support for MCK1..4 save/restore for ulp modes")
> > Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
> 
> > ---
> > 
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > This is a part from patch at [1]. I keep it at minimum (only definitions)
> > for faster acceptance as the build is broken on arm multi_v7_defconfig
> > without it).
> > In next version of patch at [1] I will update it accordingly.
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> Before hearing from you I inserted this patch in our at91-soc branch 
> that is part of linux-next. With this at least the build don't break 
> anymore.

I don't think I need the patches? I'll try to remember this patch if I
apply some patch that needs this in the future and probably just
duplicate the commit to make things simpler.

> 
> Tell me if you want to have an immutable branch that we could share with 
> it on top of 5.14-rc1 or if it's fine if we add the same patch in both 
> of our trees.
>