linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: update compatible name for match with driver

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: <60a0e51f-dc0e-4bbf-8127-f987ac2aae71@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 08:23:05 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>, andersson@...nel.org,
 konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org,
 krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: update compatible name
 for match with driver

On 13/03/2024 02:30, Tengfei Fan wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/12/2024 6:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/03/2024 08:47, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 3:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2024 03:58, Tengfei Fan wrote:
>>>>> Use compatible name "qcom,sm4450-tlmm" instead of "qcom,sm4450-pinctrl"
>>>>> to match the compatible name in sm4450 pinctrl driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 7bf8b78f86db ("dt-bindings: pinctrl: qcom: Add SM4450 pinctrl")
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/qcom,sm4450-tlmm.yaml | 2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't this applied?
>>>
>>> My test code base on tag: next-20240308, this patch is still not applied.
>>>
>>> In fact, the following dt binding check warning only can be got before
>>> this patch is applied.
>>>
>>
>> Please read all emails in the previous thread. You ignored two emails in
>> the past and apparently one more recent.
> 
> I don't know if you mean I ignored the email which related with "Patch 
> applied" tag from Linus Walleij. If so, the following is the reasion why 
> I still include this patch:

Yep, that's the one. Please do not send patches which were already
applied. It causes unnecessary effort on reviewer and maintainer side.

> 
> I synced the latest upstream code on 03/12/2024, the latest tag is 
> next-20240308, this tag still doesn't include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2].

Happens, considering Linus applied it after 8th of March, I think.

> 
> Dt binding check still get warning if I only send [PATCH v3 2/2] patch 
> to upstream base on next-20240308. so I include this patch[PATCH v3 1/2] 

If you send patch 1+2, dt_binding_check will have exactly the same
result. I don't know about what sort of dt binding check you talk, but
for all cases: you changed nothing by sending these two patches in that
regard. Only noise on the lists.

> in patch series even if this patch have "Patch applied" tag.
> 
> Looking forward to getting your advice if submitting patch series this 
> way is problematic.

Do not send patches which are known to be applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof