linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6 for sc7180 pazquel

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:   Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:23:11 -0700
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Yunlong Jia <yunlong.jia@....corp-partner.google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Henry Sun <henrysun@...gle.com>,
        Bob Moragues <moragues@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom: Document additional sku6
 for sc7180 pazquel

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:14 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 21/07/2022 20:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> > <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21/07/2022 18:43, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 9:33 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> >>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 21/07/2022 15:37, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not worth sending a new version for, but normally I expect the
> >>>>> bindings to be patch #1 and the dts change to be patch #2. In any
> >>>>> case:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would say worth v4, because otherwise patches is not bisectable.
> >>>
> >>> You're saying because `dtbs_check` will fail between the two?
> >>
> >> Yes
> >
> > OK. Then I assume you agree that reversing the order of the patches
> > won't help, only combining the two patches into one.
> >
> >
> >>> How does
> >>> flipping the order help? If `dtbs_check` needs to be bisectable then
> >>> these two need to be one patch, but I was always under the impression
> >>> that we wanted bindings patches separate from dts patches.
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must be separate from
> >> DTS. The only restriction is DTS cannot go with drivers.
> >
> > I have always heard that best practice is to have bindings in a patch
> > by themselves.
>
> Yes, bindings must be separate patch, no one here objects this. You said
> they cannot go together via one maintainer tree or I misunderstood?
>
> > If I've misunderstood and/or folks have changed their
> > minds, that's fine, but historically I've been told to keep them
> > separate.
>
> Nothing changed. Bindings must be separate. They will be applied by
> maintainer and, if correctly ordered, this is bisectable.

OK, I think this is the disconnect here.

No matter what order Jimmy's patches land in, it won't be bisectable
from the standpoint of "make dtbs_check". This is what I've been
trying to say.

* If the bindings land first then the device tree won't have sku6 and
will fail "make dtbs_check"

* If the dts lands first then the bindings won't have sku6 and will
fail "make dtbs_check".

Am I missing something?

So when you said "I don't think anyone said that bindings patches must
be separate from DTS" and that you cared about "make dtbs_check" being
bisectable that you were saying you wanted these squashed into one
patch. I guess that's not the case.

-Doug