linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] phy: cadence: Sierra: Add support for skipping configuration

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: <004e4d00-936f-1e4f-8378-b779ae168c60@ti.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:48:33 +0530
From:   Aswath Govindraju <a-govindraju@...com>
To:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
CC:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Swapnil Jakhade <sjakhade@...ence.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] phy: cadence: Sierra: Add support for skipping
 configuration

Hi Vinod,

On 04/02/22 11:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 03-02-22, 11:25, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On 03/02/22 5:44 am, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 02-02-22, 20:14, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>> Hi Vinod,
>>>>
>>>> On 02/02/22 7:53 pm, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>>> On 28-01-22, 12:56, Aswath Govindraju wrote:
>>>>>> In some cases, a single SerDes instance can be shared between two different
>>>>>> processors, each using a separate link. In these cases, the SerDes
>>>>>> configuration is done in an earlier boot stage. Therefore, add support to
>>>>>> skip reconfiguring, if it is was already configured beforehand.
>>>>>
>>>>> This fails to apply, pls rebase and resend
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On rebasing, I am seeing no difference in the patch and I am able to
>>>> apply it on top of linux-next/master commit 6abab1b81b65. May I know if
>>>> there is any other branch that I would need to rebase this patch on top of?
>>>
>>> It should be based on phy-next which is at
>>> 1f1b0c105b19ac0d90975e2569040da1216489b7 now
>>>
>>
>> I have posted a respin of this patch after rebasing it on top of
>> phy-next. One aspect that is not clear to me is, phy-next branch does
>> not have the following commit which is present in linux-next master,
>>
>> 29afbd769ca3 phy: cadence: Sierra: fix error handling bugs in probe()
> 
> This is in fixes
>>
>> When the respin of this patch(v3) is merged with linux-next/master
>> wouldn't it cause merge-conflicts?
>>
>> May I know how would this be handled?
> 
> If need arises (we have a dependency) I would merge fixes into next and
> then apply patches. Cover letter of the patches should mention that
> 

Thank you for the clarification. I will make note of mentioning this
from next time. So, just to confirm, if the fixes are merged then v2 of
this patch series will apply cleanly.

Thanks,
Aswath