linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: camss: Add CAMSS block definition

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <85cc52aa-4593-49f5-9438-1ee3f09d2d71@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 20:53:08 +0800
From: Depeng Shao <quic_depengs@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel@...cinc.com>,
        Yongsheng Li
	<quic_yon@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8550: camss: Add CAMSS block
 definition

Hi Krzysztof,

On 8/7/2024 8:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/08/2024 14:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/08/2024 14:33, Depeng Shao wrote:
>>> Add CAMSS block definition for sm8550.
>>>
>>> This drop contains definitions for the following components on sm8550:
>>
>> 1. Subject: there is no prefix camss. There is no such file, directory
>> or module.
>>

Thanks for the comment, will remove this.

>> 2. You already sent this, so this should be v2 or v3 or vX. Provide
>> changelog under ---.
>>
>> If there is going to be resend, please fix above.
>>

Sure, I thought it might be a new series, so I didn't add v*, will add 
v1, and v2 change log in new version series.

>> 3. If this was tested on aim300, I am surprised this being not enabled
>> on aim300.
> 

It was tested long times ago, but the patches wasn't sent out for 
reviewing early due to the team's internal schedule.

> One more thing, bindings were not accepted, thus this patch should not
> go in. There were no new bindings, so I assume patchset is using
> rejected ones.
> 
> It's fine to send it to get some comments, although would be nice to
> mention to maintainer that this cannot be picked up as is. :(
> 

Sure, I will resend the dtsi patch until the bindings are accepted, send 
this patches because you posted the comments in other series.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/0324e8e8-2ad4-4ce6-9616-3038b8e02ff9@quicinc.com/

Thanks,
Depeng