linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: drop unused vddp-ref-clk supply

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: <8d739c84-ba61-a030-ea8a-63a3f45c642c@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 5 Jul 2022 13:59:26 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/43] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: drop unused
 vddp-ref-clk supply

On 05/07/2022 13:46, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> It's okay to copy existing bindings which are applicable and then in
>> separate patch deprecate things or remove pieces which are not correct.
>> But all this in assumption that the first copy already selected only
>> applicable parts.
> 
> But how would you be able to tell what parts I left out from the
> original copy 

They are obvious and immediately visible. I see old bindings and new
bindings - no troubles to compare. I review new bindings - everything in
place.

I don't want to review old code, inapplicable code. The patch I am
reviewing (the one doing the split) must bring correct bindings, except
these few differences like deprecated stuff.

> unless I first do the split and then explicitly remove
> things that were presumably *never* applicable and just happened to be
> added because all bindings where combined in one large mess of a schema?

Best regards,
Krzysztof