linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: Document common device controller bindings

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: <3072bc2f-6d99-8e52-ee4c-82d5bd46fa5a@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 14:51:00 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Gatien CHEVALLIER <gatien.chevallier@...s.st.com>,
        alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        Oleksii_Moisieiev@...m.com, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc:     linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        loic.pallardy@...com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: Document common device controller
 bindings

On 22/12/2022 14:01, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> 

>>
>> Anyway you duplicate work here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c869d2751125181a55bc8a88c96e3a892b42f37a.1668070216.git.oleksii_moisieiev@epam.com/
>> and maybe you duplicate comments.
>>
>> I don't think there is point to review things twice, so NAK.
> This is a result of me not knowing how to handle this particular case. 
> It is a patch that I need to have in my patch set in order to pass Rob's 
> bindings check. Otherwise, feature domains bindings defined here will 
> not be known in the STM32 System Bus binding file, where they are used.
> 
> I wanted to illustrate the use of Oleksii's binding with a practical 
> use-case that we want to implement.

Mention patch dependency in the path changelog (---) and that's it. No
tests will be done. You are expected to run tests anyway on your side,
before sending.

> 
> What would be the correct way of managing this dependency?
> -Specify something like "On top of ...." in the cover letter/patch and 
> reference the other thread?
> -Use a "Depends-On" tag on the YAML binding commit?
> -Something else?

Best regards,
Krzysztof