linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/2] Add support for Gunyah Watchdog

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: <43e48560-2848-4474-b858-a3d15944e2ee@oss.qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:30:47 +0530
From: Hrishabh Rajput <hrishabh.rajput@....qualcomm.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pavan Kondeti <pavan.kondeti@....qualcomm.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
        Shivendra Pratap <shivendra.pratap@....qualcomm.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/2] Add support for Gunyah Watchdog



On 12/2/2025 9:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/12/2025 12:23, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
>> Hi Bjorn, Guenter, and Wim,
>>
>> Just a gentle ping on this series.
> 
> It's merge window. There was no point in pinging just before merge
> window and is even worse to ping now. Nothing can happen with this
> patchset and such pings is only noise.
> 

Thanks for the guidance and apologies for the noise created during the 
merge window.

>>
>> Since the patches have received Reviewed-by tags from Dmitry and
>> Guenter, I wanted to confirm the merge strategy.
>>
>> Bjorn: Are you planning to pick the QCOM SCM changes separately through
>> your tree, or would you prefer the whole series go through the Watchdog
>> tree?
>> If the latter, do we need an explicit Acked-by from you for QCOM SCM patch?
> 
> Where did you document dependencies between patches and any non-obvious
> merging? I open cover letter and there is NOTHING. I look at patch
> changelog and also NOTHING.
> 
> So if you tell us nothing, why would we care to think we need to do
> anything special here?
> 
> You must explicitly document every dependency, both external and between
> patches, in the cover letter. At least cover letter, some people (e.g.
> mostly me) don't even read them...
> 

This is a miss from my end. The following information should have been 
the part of the cover letter:
```
This series spans 2 subsystems and is split as follows:
- Patch 1: QCOM SCM - Register Gunyah Watchdog Platform device
- Patch 2: Watchdog - Add Gunyah Watchdog driver

Dependency:
There is no build-time dependency between the patches, but Patch 1 is 
required for Patch 2 to function.

Merge strategies:
- Strategy 1: Take both patches via the Watchdog tree.
- Strategy 2: Take Patch 1 via QCM SCM maintainter's tree, Patch 2 via 
Watchdog tree.

Since the patches concern primarily with the Watchdog, I suggest we go 
ahead with Strategy 1. If this is acceptable, I request an Acked-by from 
QCOM SCM maintainer for Patch 1.
```

I understand that this should have been a part of the cover letter. If 
it helps the process, I can add the above information in the cover 
letter and resend as v9. Since there are no other fixes, v9 would only 
contain the cover letter changes.

Thanks,
Hrishabh