linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] dt-bindings: clock: drop NUM

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: <67859de7.050a0220.184b6e.ffee@mx.google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 00:12:36 +0100
From: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	upstream@...oha.com,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] dt-bindings: clock: drop NUM_CLOCKS define for
 EN7581

On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:45:21PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Christian Marangi (2025-01-13 14:17:49)
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 01:53:46PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > 
> > > Please resubmit the entire patchset. It doesn't compile.
> > 
> > Hope I don't get annoying and sorry for this extra mail.
> 
> No worries.
> 
> > 
> > I can't repro the compile error, it seems patch 1 of this series wasn't
> > applied and changes were tested only with patch 2?
> > 
> > Patch 2 depends on patch 1 as we drop the define.
> > 
> 
> I applied the first patch, but on top of v6.13-rc1 like all other
> patches that don't tell me their base.
> 
> What's the base of the patch series? Please resend with a cover letter
> and use --base=<commitish> when formatting the patch series. When I
> applied the first patch I got this diffstat
> 
>  drivers/clk/clk-en7523.c | 12 ++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> so I suspect I'm missing something in clk-fixes for this patch series.
> Please call out dependencies in the cover letter.

Indeed v6.13-rc1 didn't had the counted_by fix. I referenced the
clk-next base branch and sent v6 with the cover letter. Hope it's clear
now.

-- 
	Ansuel