linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: dts: sifive unmatched: Name gpio lines.

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: <ce1618f9-3b56-8670-387c-bca6181089b1@canonical.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 12:05:32 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@...il.com>,
        Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Qiu Wenbo <qiuwenbo@...inos.com.cn>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Abdurachmanov <david.abdurachmanov@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: dts: sifive unmatched: Name gpio lines.

On 16/11/2021 11:17, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:39:04 +0100, Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de> wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> Am Dienstag, 16. November 2021, 01:52:56 CET schrieb Vincent Pelletier:
>>> Follow the pin descriptions given in the version 3 of the board schematics.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Pelletier <plr.vincent@...il.com>  
>>
>> when sending a patch series with "git format-patch -6" and friends will
>> automcatically generate x/y additions like "[PATCH 1/6]" and so on.
>>
>> Please try to keep them around when sending, as automated tools for patch
>> handling like "b4", stumble when they encounter a patch series without them.
> 
> Actually my intent was to not make this a series, as in my understanding
> independent patches should/may be submitted separately from each other.
> They just happen to be stacked, and in this order, in my working copy,
> but should not functionally have any dependency on one another (I
> believe they should even apply cleanly in any order).
> 

This should be a series because the patches, even though independent,
are logically connected/grouped as one work.

Best regards,
Krzysztof