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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <ebbaa7c9-156a-4205-94d9-d9e4a683840c@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2025 15:36:17 +0200
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Ben Zong-You Xie" <ben717@...estech.com>,
 "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
 "Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@...belt.com>, "Albert Ou" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
 "Alexandre Ghiti" <alex@...ti.fr>, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>,
 krzk+dt@...nel.org, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 "Daniel Lezcano" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
 "Lad, Prabhakar" <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 4, 2025, at 15:07, Ben Zong-You Xie wrote:
> 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?

Don't overthink that part, the MAINTAINERS file doesn't have to cleanly
bisect, so I'd just create the full entry there in the same patch
that adds the arch/riscv/Kconfig entry.

     Arnd