linux-kernel - Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dts64: rk3568: drop pclk

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]

Date:   Sun, 23 Jan 2022 14:38:09 +0100
From:   Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:     Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
Cc:     Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>, Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
        Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] dts64: rk3568: drop pclk_xpcs from gmac0

Hi Frank,

Am Samstag, 22. Januar 2022, 15:50:25 CET schrieb Frank Wunderlich:
> i plan to send a v2 of the series after 5.17-rc1 is out, because i have now verified
> the functions from gpio header and found some pinctrl-changes. V1 had only prepared
> the nodes to know which devices are present on this header.
> 
> should i include this patch again or do you pull it from v1 (maybe as fix)?

I do plan to include this as fix after -rc1, but I just saw that you already sent
a separate patch of it, so I'll take that one instead :-)

Heiko

> 
> regards Frank
> 
> 
> > Gesendet: Montag, 17. Januar 2022 um 22:05 Uhr
> > Von: "Heiko Stübner" <heiko@...ech.de>
> 
> > From looking at the documentation I got the impression that the
> > pclk_xpcs is related to the separate qsgmii_pcs in the memory map.
> > 
> > So yes, I fully agree to dropping this clock from here and then adding
> > them to whatever ip block really needs it.
>