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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250515092000.GF2936510@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 10:20:00 +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 Thu, 15 May 2025, Mark Brown wrote:

> On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 08:13:57AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 May 2025, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Well, you choose 3 - I do think it'd be a lot easier to go with option
> 2, or with applying the rest to your tree as acks come in.  There seemed
> to still be a reasonable amount of discussion on the MFD bits (eg,
> there's some formatting comments still) so I was expecting this series
> to churn some more and was waiting for a resend.

Yes, I expected to apply v9 with your Ack.

I can go with 2 in this case.  Applying in dribs-and-drabs as Acks come
in would be sub-optimal and would likely end up in a mess.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]