linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] memory: mtk-smi: mt8365: Add SMI 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAFGrd9oe5cEbprdT-uLtfchpmbyQ9=g61r55kDQHGb9vdmw4zA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 15:56:23 +0200
From:   Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     Yong Wu <yong.wu@...iatek.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] memory: mtk-smi: mt8365: Add SMI Support

Le jeu. 6 avr. 2023 à 09:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> a écrit :
>
> On 05/04/2023 16:34, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> >
> > On 05/04/2023 15:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 05/04/2023 15:06, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> >>> On 05/04/2023 13:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 05/04/2023 11:53, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> >>>>> Ok, I will move the driver patch before the DTS patches in the next version.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Or do not send it together at all, which might solve your dependency
> >>>> problem. According to your cover letter I cannot take the memory
> >>>> controller bits, so I am waiting for dependencies to hit the mainline.
> >>>> Alternatively I will need pull request with stable tag.
> >>>>
> >>> Ok, I prefer send the driver patch in another serie. That will solve the
> >>> dependency with the DTS a least.
> >> What dependency? Why do you have dependencies between drivers and DTS?
> >> That's a no-go.
> > I probably do something wrong but, that start with this comment [1]:
> >
> >> I guess we should add a independent "mediatek,mt8365-smi-common".
> >
> > Then I have added the mt8365 compatible support in the driver instead of using the mt8186 which already supported and used in the v1.
> > I change the binding and DTS to use "mediatek,mt8365-smi-common" only (no more "mediatek,mt8186-smi-common").
> > Maybe "dependency isn't the good word to use in that case.
>
> I do not see patch changing existing compatible. Which one is it?

I was talking between the v1 and v2 of this serie

>
> I don't know what is your meaning of dependency then. For all of us,
> dependency means one patch must be applied after another patch. So is
> this the case here? If yes, then why?

I don't think so. I think you start talking dependency in your 2nd
reply about driver/DTS, but this is only related change.

>
> > Except for the patch order in the serie (or send the driver in another one), everything is fine or there are others wrong things ?
>
> If this is the question to me, then I am not the maintainer of your
> platform. I am taking only memory controller bits, which look fine and I
> would have already apply them if not the dependency trouble. Soon the
> window for applying will close, BTW. We are almost at RC6.

The dependency is between the power series and the DTS change in this
series as explained in the cover letter thread (PATCH 00/10).
IMHO, you can take the bindings without worry. I don't see possible regression.

This series seems pretty simple, one part adds MT8365 SMI common
support in the bindings, the mt8365-evk DTS and the mtk-smi driver,
and there are no exotic stuffs.

To conclude: I'm ok to send this driver patch in another series and
put it as a dependency of the iommu series to answer your first
comment:

> >>>>>Driver code cannot be mixed with the DTS on branches/repos, so such ordering suggest your patchset is not bisectable.

Regards,
Alexandre