linux-kernel - Re: [linux][PATCH v2 04/20] dt-bindings: spi: add PIC64GX SPI/QSPI compatibility to MPFS SPI/QSPI bindings

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: <20240930-safeguard-shiftless-c10dc8fbd99b@spud>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 14:55:35 +0100
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com, Linux4Microchip@...rochip.com,
	Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
	Daire McNamara <daire.mcnamara@...rochip.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux][PATCH v2 04/20] dt-bindings: spi: add PIC64GX SPI/QSPI
 compatibility to MPFS SPI/QSPI bindings

On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 02:52:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:54:33AM +0100, pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com wrote:
> > From: Pierre-Henry Moussay <pierre-henry.moussay@...rochip.com>
> > 
> > PIC64GX SPI/QSPI are compatible with MPFS SPI/QSPI, just use
> > fallback mechanism
> 
> You've not copied me on the rest of the series so I don't know what's
> going on with dependencies.  When sending a patch series it is important
> to ensure that all the various maintainers understand what the
> relationship between the patches as the expecation is that there will be
> interdependencies.  Either copy everyone on the whole series or at least
> copy them on the cover letter and explain what's going on.  If there are
> no strong interdependencies then it's generally simplest to just send
> the patches separately to avoid any possible confusion.

FWIW, you should be okay to take this, there's nothing that depends on
this patch other than dts files and nothing that this patch depends on
in turn.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)