linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 15/15] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/V2N SoC

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: <6fa375d2-5ba8-4b2b-8a54-f28b3cbedcfb@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:22:03 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
 Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
 Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
 <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
 Fabrizio Castro <fabrizio.castro.jz@...esas.com>,
 Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/15] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/V2N SoC

On 27/03/2025 13:27, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
>> So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix
>> it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall.
> 
> I dare to say us Renesas people are not too bad at fixing stuff. In this
> particular case, I don't see a wide consensus that the above stuff is
> considered broken? Please point me to it if there is such. We are happy
> to discuss.
> 

You did not object to last discussion about this (a month ago) - neither
to my comments nor to resolution - so this patchset repeating the same
pattern from the same folks while ignoring previous talk is
contradicting "not too bad at fixing stuff".

Although of course no particular bug is here to fix - I should have used
"change". Anyway, it was long time ago consensus that arm64 does not
receive top-level ARCH_XXX per each SoC. And this is what is being added
here in this patchset.

Best regards,
Krzysztof