linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] introduce fwnode in the I2C subsystem

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: <12be48dc-b5d1-063c-87a0-050886cc2505@axentia.se>
Date:   Sun, 15 May 2022 23:34:16 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>,
        Clément Léger <clement.leger@...tlin.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@...il.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Allan Nielsen <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/9] introduce fwnode in the I2C subsystem

2022-05-14 at 16:47, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> O
>> This series is a subset of the one that was first submitted as a larger
>> series to add swnode support [1]. In this one, it will be focused on
>> fwnode support only since it seems to have reach a consensus that
>> adding fwnode to subsystems makes sense.
> 
> From a high level view, I like this series. Though, it will need Peter's
> ack on the I2C mux patches as he is the I2C mux maintainer. Still, I
> wonder about the way to upstream the series. Feels like the first 5
> patches should not go via I2C but seperately?

Hi Wolfram,

I also think it looks basically sane. However, there are a couple of
comments plus promises to adjust accordingly. I guess I filed it under
"wait for the next iteration"...

Cheers,
Peter