linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <175808457715.4354.11044142356915096975@lazor>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 21:49:37 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, mturquette@...libre.com
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, oe-kbuild-all@...ts.linux.dev, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2025-09-16 06:19:11)
> On 16/09/2025 at 10:05, nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com wrote:
> > From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
> > 
> > Dear clock maintainers,
> > 
> > Here are the first clk changes for 6.18.
> > I don't think they have conflict with changes for the deprecated round_rate()
> > to determine_rate() topic.
> > They are in linux-next for a couple of days.
> 
> But... this series depends on this patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250827145427.46819-4-nicolas.ferre@microchip.com
> 
> Which will be part of a pull-request to-be-sent soon to arm-soc (which 
> is part of linux-next, so the build error doesn't appear there).
> 
> Once the pull-request is done, do you prefer that I do an immutable 
> branch between CLK and ARM, that I queue this at91 PM patch into the clk 
> pull-request or that everything goes through arm-soc?

Whatever is required to build the code should be included in the PR. If
the same commit goes into arm-soc tree that's OK, just make sure the
branches aren't broken if you checkout a commit anywhere along the
branch that is sent to clk or arm-soc trees. Broken includes
functionally broken.