linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: s5m: Drop S5M8763 support

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: <6aa802c2-fe0d-f830-dc4d-3a139003e137@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 16:22:43 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     David Virag <virag.david003@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rtc: s5m: Drop S5M8763 support

On 23/02/2023 16:11, David Virag wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-02-23 at 16:03 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 23/02/2023 14:18:10+0000, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2023, David Virag wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The S5M8763 MFD has no device tree compatible, and since board
>>>>> file
>>>>> support for it was removed, there's no way to use this MFD.
>>>>> After
>>>>> removing the remaining code for it from the MFD driver, also
>>>>> remove
>>>>> support for it in the s5m RTC driver, and all remaining
>>>>> references to
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Virag <virag.david003@...il.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c            | 82 ++----------------------
>>>>> --------
>>>>
>>>>>  include/linux/mfd/samsung/core.h |  1 -
>>>>>  include/linux/mfd/samsung/irq.h  | 50 -------------------
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
>>>
>>> Actually, looks like this should probably go in via MFD, so I need
>>> an
>>> RTC Ack.
>>
>> There were comments on 1/2 so I was expecting a v2.
>>
>>
> 
> Krzysztof commented there about the removal of an enum value that's
> actually removed in 2/2 since it would break the RTC driver if it was
> removed in 1/2. He realised that and corrected himself. No need for v2
> AFAIK, unless something else is found.

Yep. I also gave review tags for both of these.

Best regards,
Krzysztof