linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] add Voyager board support

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: <aGfR+Vx0dseqgmKW@atctrx.andestech.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2025 21:07:05 +0800
From: Ben Zong-You Xie <ben717@...estech.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
CC: <arnd@...db.de>, <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <alex@...ti.fr>, <robh@...nel.org>,
        <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <soc@...ts.linux.dev>,
        <tim609@...estech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] add Voyager board support

On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Also, there is a patch dependency in this patchset:
> > Patch 2 <- Patch 4 <- Patch 5 <- Patch 6
> 
> How? These are bindings. How DTS can depend on the binding? Do you have
> akcs from their subsystem maintainers that you are sending it here?
>
> Sorry, but no, this should go via their maintainers, unless they did not
> want to pick it up. Is this the case here?

The dependency chain arises because each of these patches introduces a new file,
requiring a corresponding update to the MAINTAINERS file.

In v4 [1], Rob and Daniel attempted to merge Patch 4 and Patch 5, respectively,
but encountered conflicts in the MAINTAINERS file. That's why I specified the
patch dependencies in v5 and this patchset.

Now, I understand that binding patches are typically handled by subsystem
maintainers. To prevent the conflicts again, I think I should gather all
MAINTAINERS file changes into a single patch. Is that right?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250514095350.3765716-1-ben717@andestech.com/

Thanks,
Ben