linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: introduce version-specific compatible strings

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:24:38 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Markus Mayer <mmayer@...adcom.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
 Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
 Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] memory: brcmstb_dpfe: introduce version-specific
 compatible strings

On 01/02/2024 23:40, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 13:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/01/2024 22:52, Markus Mayer wrote:
>>> Introduce compatible strings brcm,dpfe-cpu-v1 through brcm,dpfe-cpu-v3
>>> to the Broadcom DPFE driver.
>>
>> Nothing improved here. I think my last comment was pretty clear what I
>> expect.
> 
> You are correct. Nothing changed here. I did not get the impression
> that you were asking for changes to the actual driver code.

I think my concern was pretty obvious:
"No, why?"

Your commit msg is pointless. Says nothing. It says what you do, but it
is obvious and redundant. I see what you do from the patch diff.

What your commit msg is supposed to say, is explain why this is needed
and what problem are you solving.

This applies to all your commits, to all projects, downstream or
upstream. Repeating what the diff is doing is trivial and does not help
people to understand why this commit is there and what is the commit's
bigger impact.

So after I asked to provide rationale, you send exactly the same commit
without rationale.

And this is repeating in this entire patchset. Patch #1 only mentions
"no actual benefit", but it is discussible. It provides benefit in my
opinion and nothing in your commit msg gives arguments to support your
clause. Patch #2 does not need more explanations but it also does not
make sense in entire series - you want to drop the specific compatibles!
What's more patch #2 does not make any sense with combination of patch
#3 and it is not explained in the commit msg.

Patch #3 also brings zero explanations why you are doing it. From all
four patches, only one had some sort of explanation - patch #1.

Best regards,
Krzysztof