linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/13] spi: spi-fsl-lpspi: Add compatible for S32G

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: <5f3fa6be-3727-4536-b769-c0a3d1646c3d@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:23:05 +0100
From: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>, Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
 Fugang Duan <B38611@...escale.com>, Gao Pan <pandy.gao@....com>,
 Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@....com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>, Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
 Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....nxp.com>,
 Larisa Grigore <larisa.grigore@....com>,
 Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@....com>,
 Ciprianmarian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@....com>, s32@....com,
 linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] spi: spi-fsl-lpspi: Add compatible for S32G



On 18/08/2025 4:18 pm, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 03:31:08PM +0100, James Clark wrote:
>> On 14/08/2025 7:25 pm, Frank Li wrote:
> 
>>> binding doc should first patch. Create new patch serial for add S32G
>>> support only.
> 
>> I'm not sure putting the binding doc commit first would be right? That would
>> imply it was a valid binding before it really was because the code change
>> hasn't been made yet. Practically both are required so it doesn't really
>> matter which way around they are.
> 
> It's the general practice everyone has adopted (though in this case the
> bugfix bits might want to go before the bindings, possibly it's also a
> bit unusual to do that).  An unused binding is more acceptable than an
> undocumented one.

Fair enough. I can flip them in the next version.