linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add HINLINK H28K

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: <20251201130106.236903-1-amadeus@jmu.edu.cn>
Date: Mon,  1 Dec 2025 21:01:06 +0800
From: Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>
To: krzk@...nel.org
Cc: amadeus@....edu.cn,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	heiko@...ech.de,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	robh@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add HINLINK H28K

Hi,

> Just squash these two binding patches. Way too much churn.

However, they are different SBCs manufactured by different companies:

HINLINK H28K - Shenzhen HINLINK manufactures
MangoPi M28K - Beijing Widora manufactures

So should I squash them into a patch?

> Anyway, looks like duplicate - two devices with same model name.

These two SBCs are indeed very similar, both in name and configuration.
So I put them in one series. Perhaps splitting them into two series to
avoid confusion would have been better?

> You have entire commit msg to explain that.

Thanks,
Chukun