linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] scsi: dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Fix warning for sdm845 by adding reg-names

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: <d3970163-b8e8-9665-3761-8942c28adaa8@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:41:09 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@...rphone.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] scsi: dt-bindings: ufs: qcom: Fix warning for sdm845
 by adding reg-names

On 26/06/2023 08:38, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>> but I guess no resends and it can be superseded.
>>>
>>> Right, the patches got reviews but was never applied... I really need to
>>> find a strategy to keep track of sent patches until they're applied with
>>> my work mailbox, it's not the first time that a patch has gotten
>>> forgotten.
>>
>> There was an error reported on the above series. Why would it be 
>> applied?
> 
> The error report at [0] complains about reg-names but I'm quite sure
> that patch 2/3 resolves this error. Does your bot only apply one patch
> at a time and run the check or apply all of them and then run it? It's
> been a while but I'm fairly sure I ran all of the checks before sending
> since I also documented some other patches in the cover letter there.

You did it in cover letter, not in the patch, so there is no dependency
for bots recorded.

> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/167241769341.1925758.17856681634949446114.robh@kernel.org/

Your patch 2/3 could not be applied to any tree. 3/3 applied but without
previous one caused warnings.




Best regards,
Krzysztof