linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mfd/extcon/regulators: max77843: add dtschema/bindings

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: <YgFIBitnI58GcUqn@sirena.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2022 16:25:42 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mfd/extcon/regulators: max77843: add
 dtschema/bindings

On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:47:00AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/02/2022 10:33, Lee Jones wrote:

> > Are the subsystem maintainers not going to review/ack?

> Would be nice to have them, but maybe since these are dt-bindings maybe
> they were skipped? Or maybe it was the end-of-year holidays?

You've been sending out a large number of very similar serieses, each of
which is going through multiple revisions - it's hard to keep track of
what's been reviewed, what's in a state where it's useful to review

> I can resend hoping it will trigger more acks. Do you wish me to resend?

It's probably going to add more noise, on the other hand some things
might've been dropped on the floor due to the similarity and whatnot.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)