linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] platform: surface: Introduce Surface XBL Driver

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: <YlcWWPqGzc4Zk9R+@robh.at.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:28:40 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jarrett Schultz <jaschultzms@...il.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Jarrett Schultz <jaschultz@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] platform: surface: Introduce Surface XBL Driver

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 02:13:42PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Jarrett,
> 
> On 1/1/70 01:00, Jarrett Schultz wrote:
> > After v4, there were some suggestions to change the driver again to use
> > nvmem that would include some other changes to the sm8150 dtsi. While
> > the suggestions make sense, this driver was supposed to remain simple
> > for the introduction in order to get it into the tree and I think that
> > it would be best to implement those and any other suggestions in a future
> > patch. Hopefully this patch is now in a state where it can be accepted.
> > Thanks to all who have helped and been patient along the way, this was
> > my first patch :)
> I appreciate your efforts to get this upstream, but this is not
> how upstream development typically works. We usually iterate a patch
> until all stakeholders are happy and then merge it.
> 
> So unless Rob changes its mind and gives his Reviewed-by for the
> devicetree bits from this v5, then this cannot be merged as is.

This is dependent on the QCom folks. We can't really define the child 
without first defining the parent binding.

Rob