linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] mailbox/arm64/ qcom: rework compatibles for fallback

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:   Thu, 2 Feb 2023 17:33:39 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mailbox/arm64/ qcom: rework compatibles for
 fallback

On 02/02/2023 17:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> If entire approach is accepted (and correct), there are no dependencies and
> patches can be picked independently.  Although the best in the same cycle, so
> there will be no new `dtbs_check` warnings.
> 

This patchset will conflict with:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230126230319.3977109-2-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org/

In few places it actually re-does Dmitry's patch, so probably we should
both come with unified solution.

Best regards,
Krzysztof