linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] dt-bindings: qcom-qce: add SoC compatible string for ipq9574

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: <7ceba3df-bee8-9f1d-a27d-85e0b5f35d83@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 14:53:45 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Anusha Rao <quic_anusha@...cinc.com>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
        konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mturquette@...libre.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        quic_arajkuma@...cinc.com, quic_gokulsri@...cinc.com,
        quic_kathirav@...cinc.com, quic_poovendh@...cinc.com,
        quic_sjaganat@...cinc.com, quic_srichara@...cinc.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, thara.gopinath@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] dt-bindings: qcom-qce: add SoC compatible string
 for ipq9574

On 23/06/2023 13:55, Anusha Rao wrote:
>> Document the compatible string for ipq9574.
>>
>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Anusha Rao <quic_anusha@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>  Changes in V4:
>> 	- Picked up Reviewed-by tag.
> 
> A gentle reminder to pick the dt-binding patch.
> As the dts change is picked, this patch is required to resolve dt-bindings check issues.

One patchset with four patches targeting three different subsystems, so
no wonder it gets missed. You will usually receive better results with
splitting such patchsets per subsystems.

One more thing is lack of proper subject prefix which indicates the
subsystem. Without it why anyone would pick it up? For example me, I
would just ignore it for my subsystem...

Best regards,
Krzysztof