linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

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: <c0346758-f4eb-4fd3-a2bc-588918e3841d@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 16:46:09 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@...cinc.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, andersson@...nel.org,
	konradybcio@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	conor+dt@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, davem@...emloft.net,
	sudeep.holla@....com, andi.shyti@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	will@...nel.org, robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org,
	jassisinghbrar@...il.com, lee@...nel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
	amitk@...nel.org, thara.gopinath@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	cristian.marussi@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com, lukasz.luba@....com,
	wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
	iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com,
	quic_psodagud@...cinc.com,
	Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/21] dt-bindings: spi: document support for SA8255p

> Ok, what is your suggestion on dt-schema check failure in that case as I
> mentioned above? Shall we remove examples from yaml that we added?

As Krzysztof keeps saying, Commit message. You have an unlimited
amount of space to document why this SoC is special, how it is
special, maybe include some ASCII art showing how it is special.
Justify it being special. Once it is clear it is special, has
dependencies which are real, we are likely to accept the patches. We
know SoC vendors do weird things, and sometimes mainline processes
just don't work. But you need to clear, upfront, and state, the
process does not work because... in your commit message. Maybe put it
below the ---.

Something i often say to Mainline newbies. The code is easy, it is the
processes which are hard. The commit message is part of the
process. You want to try to anticipate all the questions Reviewers are
going to ask and answer them in the commit message, before they ask
them. It is process that you split patches by subsystem. It is process
that binding changes and driver changes go together in the
patchset. Your 'code review' should include all this, not just the
lines of actual code. And to begin with, process is probably a lot
more important than the actual code. So please concentrate on
processes, get them right.

	Andrew