linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] leds: rgb: leds-qcom-lpg: Compute PWM value based on period instead

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: <w6ac5ygm7bahqzmq6wxeu65puhftxwhmzzbijnyvr4smbcp5yk@f36iwerbbmg4>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:15:08 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, 
	Pavel Machek <pavel@...nel.org>, Anjelique Melendez <anjelique.melendez@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Kamal Wadhwa <quic_kamalw@...cinc.com>, Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@....qualcomm.com>, 
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, 
	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, 
	linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] leds: rgb: leds-qcom-lpg: Compute PWM value based on
 period instead

Hello Krzysztof,

On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 08:07:42AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/03/2025 00:33, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > So summarizing we have: Iff you use --base with a non-public commit, it's
> 
> Which is easily visible that it was not the case here. No human used
> format-patch thus no human used --base.

The human used b4 which used git format-patch --base (or something
equivalent). It really doesn't matter that it was only used indirectly,
my statement is true nevertheless.

> > useless and irrelevant. I fully agree. Our conclusion is different
> > though. You accept it's useless (and even request from me that I do the
> > same), and I asked the submitter to use --base as intended to make the
> > resulting information usable.
> 
> Because you expect additional steps for users of b4 and pointing in
> review standard use of b4 is extremely nitpicking.

My request makes the difference between having build bot coverage and
not having it. I consider that something important so I don't agree this
to be nitpicking.

Looking at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=prerequisite-patch-id+change-id it also
doesn't seem soo unusual that people using b4 go through these
additional steps.

But I can hold out if you don't consider the result of patch checkers
relevant. That's why I intend to stop participating in this discussion
now.

Best regards
Uwe

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)