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

Message-ID: <531f4d52-a48d-498a-861c-f15d0f5b456c@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 14:25:41 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>
Cc: 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

On 01/12/2025 14:01, Chukun Pan wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Just squash these two binding patches. Way too much churn.
> 
> However, they are different SBCs manufactured by different companies:

Does not matter, you update same file doing almost the same.

> 
> 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?

No, even more confusion. Look what I wrote:

"You have entire commit msg to explain that."

Best regards,
Krzysztof