linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-soc tree

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: <ainub5g3brbi2xma2d2mz67edjfgrsgmzyrhbb4ot55p6ilko2@gr7gpjcj6rkh>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 14:03:08 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, 
	Akhil R <akhilrajeev@...dia.com>, Kartik Rajput <kkartik@...dia.com>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the i2c tree with the arm-soc tree

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:14:45PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> > Note also that I only applied the DT bindings patch from the v6 series
> > because it was already acked by device tree maintainers and there have
> > not been any objections to the DT bits, nor are they relevant to the
> > driver changes still being reviewed.
> 
> May I suggest then to send the DT bindings patch seperately next time?
> We can apply it earlier then, so you can continue your work. I prefer to
> take binding patches via the I2C tree so I can chime in if necessary and
> also to keep the merge conflicts low.

Yes, maybe sending DT patches separately is a better approach. I'm sure
somebody else will find that objectionable, but... oh well.

checkpatch also tends to warn about patches using compatible strings
that it cannot find any trace of, which has always been a good argument
in favour of sending series with all of the pieces.

So if you were to pick up the DT bindings patch, then I still cannot
apply patches to the Tegra tree that use compatible strings introduced
in that DT bindings patch because it'll cause checkpatch to warn about
it. I can of course ignore that warning, but the warning causes things
like b4 to fail, which then makes all of these tools almost pointless
to use.

Honestly, I don't know what the right solution is here. Seems to me like
no matter how you do it there's some downside.

Thierry

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)