linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <414b2785-fba0-1426-d059-befeabe9ddac@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Jan 2023 14:17:09 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com,
        alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver

On 03/01/2023 13:45, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:

>>>> Uh, why does it depend? I understood the changset is bisectable and
>>>> removal of unneeded driver will happen later. Otherwise it is not
>>>> bisectable...
>>>
>>> AT91 devices will fail to boot if this patch is applied and 1/3 is not
>>> there. This is because clock framework will disable DDR clocks because
>>> there will be no consumer for them.
>>
>> This I understand, but why do you need this patch to be able to apply
>> 1/3? 
> 
> To avoid having AT91 devices failing to boot in case your tree (containing
> this patch) is merged  first.

But this patch is not going to be merged first. It will wait one more
cycle, so the dependency is there.

If you need to make it in one cycle for some reason, then I would need
stable tag with the clock patch.

Best regards,
Krzysztof