linux-kernel - Re: (subset) [PATCH v2 0/2] phy: usb: Broadcom BCM4908 USB init fixes

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: <c1d1c6fa-9d5c-4dc2-92bd-4deac333a568@broadcom.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:17:23 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
Cc: Justin Chen <justin.chen@...adcom.com>, Al Cooper <alcooperx@...il.com>,
 Sam Edwards <cfsworks@...il.com>,
 Broadcom internal kernel review list
 <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
 Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: (subset) [PATCH v2 0/2] phy: usb: Broadcom BCM4908 USB init fixes

On 10/7/24 11:12, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 07-10-24, 10:06, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 10/7/24 08:48, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 03 Oct 2024 20:41:29 -0700, Sam Edwards wrote:
>>>> This is v2 of my previous patch [1] targeted at resolving a crash-on-boot on
>>>> the BCM4908 family due to a missized table.
>>>>
>>>> Changes v1->v2:
>>>> - Florian requested this change be broken into an immediate bugfix (w/ the
>>>>     'fixes' tag) and a second patch containing the coding change aimed at
>>>>     preventing this problem from happening again
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks!
>>>
>>> [2/2] phy: usb: update Broadcom driver table to use designated initializers
>>>         commit: d3712b35f3c694cb932f87194caafc714109ea08
>>
>> I looked at your tree and both patches are applied in the "next" branch and
>> the first one is also in the "fixes" branch, thanks Vinod!
> 
> First one should go into fixes, whereas second on next (due to
> dependency merged fixes into next)

Yes that makes sense and is what I would have expected. I got worried 
about your git hook responding to this patch series and indicating that 
only the second patch had been applied, thus making me look into your 
tree to double check this had not been the case.
-- 
Florian