linux-kernel - Re: [DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: Add common1 register space for AM62x and AM65x SoCs

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: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:05:23 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, jyri.sarha@....fi,
	tomi.valkeinen@...asonboard.com, airlied@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
	maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com, mripard@...nel.org,
	tzimmermann@...e.de, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	praneeth@...com, nm@...com, vigneshr@...com, a-bhatia1@...com,
	j-luthra@...com, kristo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: Add common1 register
 space for AM62x and AM65x SoCs

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 02:48:53PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> Hi Conor,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> On 15/01/24 21:44, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 06:27:16PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> >> This adds common1 register space for AM62x and AM65x SoC's which are using
> >> TI's Keystone display hardware and supporting it as described in
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/ti/ti,am65x-dss.yaml.
> >>
> >> This region is documented in respective Technical Reference Manuals [1].
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >> AM62x TRM:
> >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiv7 (Section 14.8.9.1 DSS Registers)
> >>
> >> AM65x TRM:
> >> https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruid7 (Section 12.6.5 DSS Registers)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Devarsh Thakkar <devarsht@...com>
> >> ---
> > 
> > "[DO NOT MERGE PATCH 2/2]" but no rationale here as to why this cannot
> > be merged? What's the problem with it?
> > 
> 
> No problem as such from my point of view, but this is the process I follow
> since maintainer trees for device-tree file and bindings are different. I
> generally mark a [DO NOT MERGE] tag for device-tree file patches until binding
> patch gets merged so that the device-tree patches don't get applied by mistake
> if binding patch has some pending comments.

RFC is the tag for "don't merge". Don't make-up your own tags.

Rob