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: <ef237b3c-8613-4cd8-9391-e4a08d50cc6c@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:30:07 +0800
From: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        <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 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:

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].

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] 
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.

Thank Krzysztof again for your patient and kind review this patch series!

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Thx and BRs,
Tengfei Fan