linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the samsung-krzk tree

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: <e56525c4-0e71-4c5d-9af2-b697e6b86d61@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 06:11:26 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, Wim Van Sebroeck
 <wim@...ana.be>, Byoungtae Cho <bt.cho@...sung.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
 Sunyeal Hong <sunyeal.hong@...sung.com>, Taewan Kim <trunixs.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the watchdog tree with the
 samsung-krzk tree

On 11/7/24 02:37, Wim Van Sebroeck wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>> On 07/11/2024 06:59, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Today's linux-next merge of the watchdog tree got a conflict in:
>>>
>>>    arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynosautov920.dtsi
>>>
>>> between commit:
>>>
>>>    ef1c2a54cbc7 ("arm64: dts: exynosautov920: add peric1, misc and hsi0/1 clock DT nodes")
>>>
>>> from the samsung-krzk tree and commit:
>>>
>>>    3595a523d043 ("arm64: dts: exynosautov920: add watchdog DT node")
>>
>> The main problem is above patch should have never been taken to watchdog
>> tree. I never agreed on that. I never acked it. It is against SoC
>> policies which are always requesting entire DTS to go through SoC tree.
>>
>> Please drop the patch from watchdog. Or revert it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> See my other e-mail. Since the 3 patches were about adding a new watchdog driver, I indeed took them in.
> This was reverted and I can only presume that you will take the 3 patches and do the necessary via the SoC tree.
> 

I think the idea was that the watchdog tree would take the driver and
its devicetree property description, and the SoC tree would take the
actual devicetree changes. At least that is what I do in hwmon.

Guenter