linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/18] soc: amlogic: Move power-domain drivers to the genpd dir

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]

Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 17:48:41 -0700
From:   Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
        Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] soc: amlogic: Move power-domain drivers to the
 genpd dir

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 02:45:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023, at 14:37, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jul 2023 at 04:21, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 05:27:39PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that each platform
> > maintainer should merge the immutable branch with patch1 - and that I
> > should send the patches (based on the immutable branch) to each of the
> > platform maintainers to manage. Instead of one pull request with
> > everything directly to Arnd, right?
> >

That's what I suggest, yes.

> > This still means that Arnd will have to resolve the conflicts as the
> > pull requests arrive in his inbox.
> >

Yes, we will have N maintainers modifying drivers/genpd/Makefile, all
adding their single obj-y line. A quite trivial conflict to manage.

> > Although, I guess what you are looking for is less work for the soc/
> > maintainers, which seems reasonable. Although, in that case, I might
> > as well share an immutable branch with the complete series, rather
> > than just patch1. That should help Arnd too, I think.
> >
> > Again, let's leave the call to Arnd on what to do.
> 
> I think it's much easier for me to pick up a single branch with
> all of your patches. For platform maintainers, other changes can
> go one of two ways:
> 
> - send a normal pull requests with changes against the same
>   files, and have me take care of any conflicts where they
>   arise. Since most of the changes are just simple file moves
>   rather than changing file contents, 'git mergetool' handles
>   these fine is most cases
> 
> - If there is a non-obvious merge, the entire genpd branch
>   can be shared as an immutable branch, with patches for
>   a particular platform rebased on top of that branch.
> 

I already have a set of patches to these drivers in my tree for v6.6, in
their current location.

I'm afraid I am unable to see how we're going to handle the merge
conflict you're going to create in linux-next. Perhaps you're proposing
to just never publish Ulf's patches to linux-next?

By me merging the immutable patch 1 and the qcom-patch, the conflicts
would be minimal, and except for the genpd/Makefile entirely handled by
me.

Regards,
Bjorn