linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c: silvaco,i3c-target-v1

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: <20240116-bleach-herbicide-48d636967134@wendy>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:30:25 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
CC: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>, <robh@...nel.org>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <conor.culhane@...vaco.com>,
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <imx@...ts.linux.dev>, <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
	<joe@...ches.com>, <linux-i3c@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	<miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <zbigniew.lukwinski@...ux.intel.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: i3c: svc: add compatible string i3c:
 silvaco,i3c-target-v1

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 08:24:20AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 16/01/2024 03:29, Frank Li wrote:
> >>> 	Patches were accepted after discussion, what you ponit to. So I
> >>> think everyone agree on the name 'silvaco,i3c-master-v1'.
> >>> 	I plan send next version to fix auto build error. Any additional
> >>> comments about this?
> >>
> >> I still do not see how did you address Rob's comment and his point is
> >> valid. You just did not reply to it.
> > 
> > See https://lore.kernel.org/imx/ZXCiaKfMYYShoiXK@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810/
> 
> First of all, that's not the answer to Rob's email, but some other
> thread which is 99% ignored by Rob (unless he has filters for
> "@Rob"...). Therefore no, it does not count as valid answer.
> 
> Second, explanation does not make sense. There is no argument granting
> you exception from SoC specific compatibles.

The patch could have been applied two months ago had Frank done as
was requested (multiple times). I don't understand the resistance
towards doing so given the process has taken way way longer as a result.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)