linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Add ICE phandle

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: <80ca0da4-5243-9771-0c4c-62b956e97b2f@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 08:07:51 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>, linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Add ICE phandle

On 22/06/2023 03:19, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> 
> Abel,
> 
>> Un-reviewed. This is broken and was never tested. After applying this
>> patch, I can see many new warnings in all DTBs (so it is easy to spot
>> that it was not actually tested).
>>
>> Your probably meant here:
>>   if:
>>     required:
> 
> Please provide a fix for this. I don't want to rebase this late in the
> cycle.

AFAIK, this was not applied. At least as of next 20210621 and I
commented on this few days ago. Anything changed here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof