linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] riscv: sophgo: add dmamux support for Sophgo CV1800/SG2000 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]

Message-ID:
 <IA1PR20MB4953A54849156FFCC392735BBB2D2@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:47:30 +0800
From: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, 
	Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>, Liu Gui <kenneth.liu@...hgo.com>, 
	Jingbao Qiu <qiujingbao.dlmu@...il.com>, dlan@...too.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] riscv: sophgo: add dmamux support for Sophgo
 CV1800/SG2000 SoCs

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:06:19AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/03/2024 07:38, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > Add dma multiplexer support for the Sophgo CV1800/SG2000 SoCs.
> > 
> > The patch include the following patch:
> > http://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/PH7PR20MB4962F822A64CB127911978AABB4E2@PH7PR20MB4962.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
> 
> What does it mean? Did you include here some other commit, so when it
> get applied we end up with two same commits? No, that's not how to
> handle dependencies. Explain instead the dependency or combine patchsets.
> 

Because the binding patch (patch 1) included is a must to describe 
syscon binding. And the driver code needs soc definition (patch 3).
If these patch are maintained separately, patch 3 should go to series
of syscon, which make dependency of these two patch setis too complex.
So I tend to evolve them together.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>