linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] mfd: bcm590xx: Add support for multiple device types + BCM59054 compatible

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: <20250515071357.GD2936510@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 08:13:57 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Artur Weber <aweber.kernel@...il.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Broadcom internal kernel review list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
	Stanislav Jakubek <stano.jakubek@...il.com>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 4/9] mfd: bcm590xx: Add support for multiple device
 types + BCM59054 compatible

On Wed, 14 May 2025, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 03:09:57PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2025, Artur Weber wrote:
> 
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/mfd/bcm590xx.c       | 12 +++++++++++-
> > >  include/linux/mfd/bcm590xx.h |  7 +++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> > I can't merge this until Mark has provided the Regulator Acks.
> 
> Could you be more explicit what you're looking for here, the diffstat is
> entirely MFD?

Okay, more explicitly, I can merge this and MFD will have no issue.
However, the Regulator commits make use of 'pmu_id' introduced in this
change and would therefore cause a compile break.  So we could:

  1. Apply this now and merge the dependents next cycle
  2. Apply this now and provide an IB
  3. Wait for all Acks and apply as a unified set

We usually choose 3, hence my assumptions above.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]