linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Rename thermal zone definitions for MT8186 and MT8188

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]

Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 17:25:35 +0200
From: Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger
 <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
 AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
 Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
 <rafael@...nel.org>, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
 Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] dt-bindings: thermal: mediatek: Rename thermal
 zone definitions for MT8186 and MT8188

On 5/24/24 20:27, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 07:24:47PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 11:04:34AM +0200, Julien Panis wrote:
>>> Use thermal zone names that make more sense.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>
>> Removing the defines is an ABI break. If these are all the same devices,
>> but with more accurate naming, then keep the old defines and add new
>> ones. However, the GPU1 define changes in the course of this patch which
>> is more problematic.
>>> [RFC] When PATCH 1/6 and 2/6 are squashed, checkpatch raises this WARNING:
>>> "DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch." That's why I
>>> split them in this v5. The problem is that the driver can't be compiled
>>> any more at PATCH 1/6. It needs PATCH 2/6 to be compiled. Should the
>>> checkpatch warning be ignored here ? Should I finally squash PATCH 1/6
>>> and PATCH 2/6 ?
> Heh, and there's just one of the issues caused by your ABI break...

Conor,

Would Russell's suggestion be acceptable for you ?
I mean, this one:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZlDMNkdE2jmFgD8B@shell.armlinux.org.uk/

I could implement it, but before submitting it I would like to make
sure that it suits everyone.

Julien

>
>> Why do these names even make more sense? Where did the old names come
>> from and where do the new?
>
> Thanks,
> Conor