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:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 16:21:35 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: watchdog: mediatek,mtk-wdt: add MT7988
 watchdog and toprgu

On 10/11/2023 16:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> So adding the file to include/dt-bindings/reset/ should go into a
>>>> seperate patch? Because including it with the driver itself gave me
>>>> a checkpath warning telling me that dt-bindings should go seperate,
>>>> which is why I included it with the binding docs.
>>>
>>> No, I said the hunk should be dropped. Removed.
>>
>> I guess we are somehow misunderstanding each other.
>> Lets go with an example. I can put the header into a commit of its own,
>> just like commit
>> 5794dda109fc8 dt-bindings: reset: mt7986: Add reset-controller header file
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220105100456.7126-2-sam.shih@mediatek.com
>>
>> Would that be acceptable? And if not, why?
> 
> ...this question.
> 
> Again, whether this is separate patch - it is still hunk which I think
> should be removed. I gave the reason "why" in this mail thread and in
> multiple other discussions.

I gave you clear reasoning 7 hours ago:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/59629ec1-cc0c-4c5a-87cc-ea30d64ec191@linaro.org/
to which you did not respond.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ