linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support 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 10:38:00 +0200
From: Julien Panis <jpanis@...libre.com>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
 Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>
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>,
 "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 0/6] Mediatek thermal sensor driver support for MT8186
 and MT8188

On 5/24/24 19:19, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:04:38PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2024, Julien Panis wrote:
>>
>>> [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 ?
>> IMHO it might be preferable to preserve successful compilation across
>> bisection than to appeal to checkpatch in this case.
> Or, patch 1 adds the new definitions, subsequent patches convert the
> users, and the last patch removes the old, now unused, definitions.
>

Thanks for this suggestion. I'll do something like that in next version.