linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] clk: samsung: introduce nMUX to reparent MUX clocks

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]

Message-ID: <f67ca72f-c0ae-4f2f-a435-b00266914053@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:13:39 +0100
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 peter.griffin@...aro.org
Cc: alim.akhtar@...sung.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 andre.draszik@...aro.org, willmcvicker@...gle.com, kernel-team@...roid.com,
 s.nawrocki@...sung.com, cw00.choi@...sung.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
 sboyd@...nel.org, semen.protsenko@...aro.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 jaewon02.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] clk: samsung: introduce nMUX to reparent MUX
 clocks



On 4/13/24 09:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/03/2024 13:34, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> v3:
>> - update first patch:
>>   - remove __nMUX() as it duplicated __MUX() with an exception on flags.
>>   - update commit message
>>   - update comment and say that nMUX() shall be used where MUX reparenting
>>     on clock rate chage is allowed
>> - collect R-b, A-b tags
>>
> 
> Sorry for late response, somehow this end up deep in inbox. You

no worries!

> reference some non existing commits, so I think you do not work on
> mainline trees.

Ah, the horror, you're right, I messed up the fixes reference in commit
2. It's because I started working on this before that patch got
integrated. Would be good to extend checkpatch to catch such situations.

> 
> Also Fixes must come before other patches, so probably first patch
> should be squashed with second. Otherwise second patch is not a complete
> fix.

I don't mind squashing them. I noticed a tag that might help in this
situations: "Depends-on:". But I guess we can't use that in the same
patch set as when the maintainer applies the dependency and adds its
S-o-b tag, it will modify the sha1 of the commit. Will squash them.

Cheers,
ta