linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Factor out arduino connector bits

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]

Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:12:43 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
 Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Bao Cheng Su <baocheng.su@...mens.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: ti: iot2050: Factor out arduino connector
 bits

On 19/12/2023 09:06, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 19.12.23 08:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/12/2023 17:35, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>>
>>> A new variant is to be added which will not have a arduino connector
>>> like the existing ones. Factor out all bits that are specific to this
>>> connector.
>>>
>>> The split is not perfect because wkup_gpio0 is defined based on what is
>>> common to all variants having the connector, thus containing also
>>> connector-unrelated information. But this is still cleaner than
>>> replicating this node into all 4 variants.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../ti/k3-am65-iot2050-arduino-connector.dtsi | 768 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>  .../boot/dts/ti/k3-am65-iot2050-common.dtsi   | 753 -----------------
>>
>> Please use proper -B/-M/-C arguments so code movements will be detected.
>>
> 
> Those are in place but have no impact, likely because the source file is

In place as what?

> still ~700 lines after the shuffling.

The original file has 720 lines, so if you move 750 (!) of them, I can
hardly believe the rename cannot be detected. You are basically moving
90% or 95% of file, so this must be represented with proper diff.

Your patches do not apply on next, neither on master, so it is tricky to
check.

How do you expect us to review it? Compare line by line?

Best regards,
Krzysztof