linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-nvmem: fix board compatible in example

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]

Date:   Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:52:18 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ilia Lin <ilia.lin@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-nvmem: fix board
 compatible in example

On 28/06/2022 02:45, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-06-22, 13:50, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 04:33:40PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> In the example, alone compatible "qcom,qcs404" is not correct.  Add
>>> proper board compatibles for QCS404 Evaluation Board.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Can be picked up independently, although the issue reported by Rob was
>>> caused by:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_JsqKXDs=QHKob2Xy6vAFZfnkM9ggfmqf9TNA1hv8TScTmgQ@mail.gmail.com/
>>
>> Best to go in that tree unless it's going to take weeks...
> 
> Lemme know Krzysztof about the timing, I am going to send a pull
> request for cpufreq fixes very soon, so I can take it as well if you
> want.


Thanks Viresh, but I think Rob has a point here - this should be rather
same tree, otherwise checks on your tree complain about undocumented
board compatibles from this patch (because they are in this original tree).

I'll take it and add to my pull request for Rob or Bjorn.

Best regards,
Krzysztof