linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: imx95-15x15-frdm: support AONMIX MQS

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: <aXjyWHrwCJ19oUkX@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 12:14:00 -0500
From: Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiumihalcea111@...il.com>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
	Shengjiu Wang <shengjiu.wang@....com>,
	Chancel Liu <chancel.liu@....com>, linux-sound@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	imx@...ts.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: imx95-15x15-frdm: support AONMIX MQS

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 04:22:19AM -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
>
> On 1/26/2026 8:40 AM, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 06:55:37AM -0800, Laurentiu Mihalcea wrote:
> >> From: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@....com>
> >>
> >> Add support for AONMIX MQS (i.e. MQS1).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Laurentiu Mihalcea <laurentiu.mihalcea@....com>
> >> ---
> >>  .../boot/dts/freescale/imx95-15x15-frdm.dts   | 73 +++++++++++++++++++
> >>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx95.dtsi      |  5 ++
> > Chip's dtsi and board dts should be two patches.
> >
> > Frank
>
>
> What's the rationale for this? Is this "rule" documented anywhere?
>
> IMO, the DTSI-related changes are small enough that it doesn't justify
>
> the split into different patches. The split would've made more sense
>
> if we were touching more than 1 board.

Shawn's reqirement. I want to continue to follow this rule.

Frank

>