linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] dt-bindings: clk: document PolarFire SoC fabric clocks

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:53:49 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mturquette@...libre.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        palmer@...belt.com, sboyd@...nel.org, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        Hugh.Breslin@...rochip.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] dt-bindings: clk: document PolarFire SoC fabric
 clocks

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 07:44:20PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 22/08/2022 20:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:29:25 +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> On PolarFire SoC there are 4 PLL/DLL blocks, located in each of the
> >> ordinal corners of the chip, which our documentation refers to as
> >> "Clock Conditioning Circuitry". PolarFire SoC is an FPGA, these are
> >> highly configurable & many of the input clocks are optional.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
> >> ---
> >>  .../bindings/clock/microchip,mpfs-ccc.yaml    | 81 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 81 insertions(+)
> >>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/microchip,mpfs-ccc.yaml
> >>
> > 
> > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> 
> Heh, been waiting for this one all day. Messed up squashing commits
> before sending v2... fixed locally & I'll respin later in the week.
> I tried to mark it "changes required" in patchwork so you'd not waste
> time on it but I think that got reverted?

Could have. The CI job messes with the state and then I do, and my 
scripts don't expect the state changing underneath it. Most users don't 
have PW accounts.

Don't worry, I don't spend much time on failing patches.

Rob