linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: loongson32: Update the clock initialization

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]

Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 10:29:10 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: loongson32: Update the clock initialization

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:07:23AM +0800, Keguang Zhang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 7:31 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Keguang Zhang (2023-02-10 03:11:41)
> > > The Loongson-1 clock driver is under re-implementation
> > > to add DT support. As a result, ls1x_clk_init() will be dropped soon.
> > > Therefore, call of_clk_init() for clock initialization instead.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230209132614.1079198-3-keguang.zhang@gmail.com
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230209132614.1079198-4-keguang.zhang@gmail.com
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> Sorry to bother you.
> For fear of raising build error, is it possible to merge this patch
> before the above two patches getting applied?
> Or is there anything to improve?
> Thanks very much!

the IMHO best way would be to let this patch go the same way as
the other patch set. So Stephen could you take this into your
tree, too ?

Acked-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]