On 5/6/19 4:58 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:10 PM Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> From: Douglas Anderson
>> Date: Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:48 AM
>> To: Kees Cook, Anton Vorontsov
>> Cc: , ,
>> , , ,
>> Douglas Anderson, Colin Cross, Tony Luck,
>>
>>
>>> When you try to run
On 5/7/19 10:59 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 10:52 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>>> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
>>
>> A more complete explanation of why th
On 5/6/19 9:48 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> We'll add a dummy to just return false.
A more complete explanation of why this is needed please.
My one guess would be compile testing of arch/sparc/kernel/prom_64.c
fails???
-Frank
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson
> ---
>
>
On 4/24/19 3:48 AM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> On 19.04.19 09:40, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> Hi Enrico,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:57:22PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
>> wrote:
>>> Little helper macro that declares an oftree module device table,
>>> if CONFIG_OF is
On 4/16/19 12:57 PM, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote:
> we don't need to build in oftree probing stuff when oftree isn't
> enabled at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
> ---
> drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c | 8 +++-
> 1 file changed, 7
d list
> - * @ids: array of of device match structures to search in
> + * @matches: array of of device match structures to search in
> * @dev: the of device structure to match against
> *
> * Used by a driver to check whether an platform_device present in the
>
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
Hi Colin,
On 4/16/19 4:12 AM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King
>
> There is a spelling mistake in a FAIL message, fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King
> ---
> scripts/dtc/checks.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/scripts/dtc/checks.c
On 4/10/19 9:21 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 4/10/19 9:13 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 4/10/19 6:51 PM, xiaojiangfeng wrote:
>>> My pleasure.
>>>
>>> I am very new to sparse.
>>>
>>> I guess the warning is caused by the macro min.
>&g
s patch
is the correct one to apply.
I will pursue the cause of the sparse warning myself separately.
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
On 4/10/19 6:47 PM, xiaojiangfeng wrote:
> problem detected by sparse:
> drivers/of/fdt.c:1094:34: warning: expression using sizeof(void)
>
> Signed-off-by: xiaojiangfeng
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c
On 4/10/19 9:13 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 4/10/19 6:51 PM, xiaojiangfeng wrote:
>> My pleasure.
>>
>> I am very new to sparse.
>>
>> I guess the warning is caused by the macro min.
>
> I think the warning is likely because the type of data is 'void *'.
arning.
-Frank
> Then I submitted my changes.
>
> Thanks for code review.
>
>
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Frank Rowand [mailto:frowand.l...@gmail.com]
> 发送时间: 2019年4月11日 2:50
> 收件人: xiaojiangfeng ; robh...@kernel.org;
> r...@kernel.org
> 抄送: devicet...@vger.k
On 4/10/19 1:29 AM, xiaojiangfeng wrote:
> The type of variable l in early_init_dt_scan_chosen is
> int, there is no need to convert to int.
>
> Signed-off-by: xiaojiangfeng
> ---
> drivers/of/fdt.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c
On 4/7/19 6:27 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On 8/04/19 1:05 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 4/3/19 6:50 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm implementing support for some modular Linux based systems using
>
On 4/7/19 6:27 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On 8/04/19 1:05 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On 4/3/19 6:50 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm implementing support for some modular Linux based systems using
>
ying this overlay is
> +returned via reference on success.
>
> 2. Call of_overlay_remove() to remove and cleanup the overlay changeset
> previously created via the call to of_overlay_fdt_apply(). Removal of an
>
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
Hi Chris,
On 4/3/19 6:50 PM, Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm implementing support for some modular Linux based systems using
> device tree overlays. The code is working but it seems a little more
> fiddly that than it should be so I'm wondering if I'm doing it right.
Let me start by saying
t *ovcs_id)
> +static inline int of_overlay_fdt_apply(void *overlay_fdt, u32
> overlay_fdt_size,
> + int *ovcs_id)
> {
> return -ENOTSUPP;
> }
>
Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
On 3/20/19 3:49 AM, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Existing check of `fn` against NULL inside OF match table
> is redundant. Remove the check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha
> Cc: Rob Herring
> Cc: Frank Rowand
> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou
> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org
> --
On 3/14/19 4:26 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Frank and Steve,
>
> Thank you for pointing it out :)
>
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 18:19:08 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:05:02 -0700
>> Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>>> Hi St
Hi Steve,
Ping.
-Frank
On 1/24/19 6:17 PM, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Fix compile warning in create_dyn_event(): 'ret' may be used uninitialized
> in this function [-Wuninitialized].
>
> Fixes: 5448d44c3855 ("tracing: Add unified
On 2/20/19 12:44 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/18/19 2:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>
On 2/18/19 2:25 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand
>>>
On 2/19/19 10:34 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 12:02 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>
>> I have not read through the patches in any detail. I have read some of
>> the code to try to understand the patches to the devicetree unit tests.
>> So that may lim
On 2/19/19 7:39 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
>>> implementing assertions.
>&
res;
>
> /* adding data for unittest */
> +
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_UML))
> + unittest_unflatten_overlay_base();
> +
> res = unittest_data_add();
> if (res)
> return res;
>
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
On 2/12/19 5:44 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:56 PM Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 PM Brendan Higgins
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
>>> run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and
On 2/15/19 2:56 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:05 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Hig
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> This patch set proposes KUnit, a lightweight unit testing and mocking
> framework for the Linux kernel.
>
> Unlike Autotest and kselftest, KUnit is a true unit testing framework;
> it does not require installing the kernel on a test machine or in a VM
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Add support for aborting/bailing out of test cases. Needed for
> implementing assertions.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> Changes Since Last Version
> - This patch is new introducing a new cross-architecture way to abort
>out of a test
On 2/15/19 6:18 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 2/15/19 4:46 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> UML supports enabling OF, and is useful for running the device tree
>> tests, so add support for unflattening device tree blobs so we can
>> actually use it.
>>
>&g
On 2/15/19 4:46 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> UML supports enabling OF, and is useful for running the device tree
> tests, so add support for unflattening device tree blobs so we can
> actually use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3
On 2/14/19 1:37 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Migrate tests without any cleanup, or modifying test logic in anyway to
> run under KUnit using the KUnit expectation and assertion API.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/Kconfig|1 +
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 1310
On 2/15/19 1:49 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:48 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/14/19 5:26 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:10 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/12/19 10:53 AM, Br
On 2/14/19 5:26 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 4:10 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 2/12/19 10:53 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> UML supports enabling OF, and is useful for running the device tree
>>> tests, so add support for unflatt
On 2/14/19 4:56 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brendan,
>>>>
>&
On 2/12/19 10:53 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> UML supports enabling OF, and is useful for running the device tree
> tests, so add support for unflattening device tree blobs so we can
> actually use it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins
> ---
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3
On 12/5/18 3:54 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:58 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brendan,
>>
>> On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>>> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
>>>
On 2/2/19 12:56 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 02:04:16PM -0800, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>Include documentation for each *function* in *source*.
>> - If no *function* if specified, the documentaion for all functions
>> + If no *function* if specified, the
On 1/29/19 4:18 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:01:12 +0100 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> wrote:
>>
>> Stop recommending that core.abbrev=12 be hardcoded when referring to
>> kernel commits, and instead rely on the git's default abbreviation.
>>
>> Hardcoding this
On 1/24/19 5:20 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 1/24/19 3:45 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 1/24/19 12:08 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Since c32569e358ad ("regulator: Use of_node_name_eq for node name
>>> comparisons") Vivien reported the mc1389
On 1/24/19 12:08 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Since c32569e358ad ("regulator: Use of_node_name_eq for node name
> comparisons") Vivien reported the mc13892-regulator complaining about
> not being able to find regulators.
>
> This is because prior to that commit we used of_node_cmp() to compare
>
On 1/7/19 11:24 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Mon 2019-01-07 11:06:27, Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> + Frank
>>
>> On 1/7/19 10:37 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Is it "Device Tree" or "device tree"?
>>>
>>> pavel@duo:/data
On 1/7/19 10:45 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>> Is it "Device Tree" or "device tree"?
>>
>> pavel@duo:/data/l/k/Documentation$ grep -r "Device Tree" | wc -l
>> 235
>> pavel@duo:/data/l/k/Documentation$ grep -r "device tree" | wc -l
>> 595
+ Frank
On 1/7/19 10:37 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Is it "Device Tree" or "device tree"?
>
> pavel@duo:/data/l/k/Documentation$ grep -r "Device Tree" | wc -l
> 235
> pavel@duo:/data/l/k/Documentation$ grep -r "device tree" | wc -l
> 595
>
> I guess it would be nice to make it
On 12/18/18 12:09 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 12/18/18 12:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/17/18 2:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>
>>>> frowand.l
On 12/18/18 12:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:57 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 12/17/18 2:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>> Hi Frank,
>>>
>>> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
&
On 12/18/18 11:40 AM, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
> the phandle cache. Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
> will incorrectly find the stale entry. Remove the node from the
&g
On 12/18/18 11:40 AM, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> The phandle cache contains struct device_node pointers. The refcount
> of the pointers was not incremented while in the cache, allowing use
> after free error after kfree() of the node. Add the p
On 12/17/18 2:52 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> frowand.l...@gmail.com writes:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
>> the phandle cache. Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
>>
On 12/14/18 2:47 PM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 12/14/18 9:15 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> The phandle cache contains struct device_node pointers. The refcount
>>>
On 12/14/18 9:15 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM wrote:
>>
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> The phandle cache contains struct device_node pointers. The refcount
>> of the pointers was not incremented while in the cache, allowing us
On 12/14/18 1:56 PM, Michael Bringmann wrote:
> On 12/14/2018 11:20 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:43 AM wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the nod
Hi Michael Bringmann,
On 12/13/18 10:42 PM, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Non-overlay dynamic devicetree node removal may leave the node in
> the phandle cache. Subsequent calls to of_find_node_by_phandle()
> will incorrectly find the stale entry. T
Hi Michael Bringmann,
On 12/11/18 8:07 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:29 AM Michael Ellerman wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Please Cc the device tree folks on device tree patches, and also the
>> original author of the patch that added the code you're modifying.
>>
>> So I've
Hi Rob,
On 11/26/18 4:01 AM, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand
>
> Add -T and --annotations command line arguments to dtx_diff. These
> arguments will be passed through to dtc. dtc will then add source
> location annotations to its output.
>
> Signed
Hi Brendan,
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
> unittest.c monolith. The intention is that we will eventually split out
> all test cases and group them together based on what portion of device
> tree they test.
Hi Brendan,
On 11/28/18 11:36 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Split out a couple of test cases that these features in base.c from the
> unittest.c monolith. The intention is that we will eventually split out
> all test cases and group them together based on what portion of device
> tree they test.
On 11/9/18 2:36 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:29 AM Matthias Brugger
> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2018 18:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Matthias Brugger (2018-11-08 00:29:46)
On 06/11/2018 19:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> +int
On 11/9/18 2:36 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:29 AM Matthias Brugger
> wrote:
>> On 08/11/2018 18:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Matthias Brugger (2018-11-08 00:29:46)
On 06/11/2018 19:36, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> +int
, typically some sort of lock or rcu would be used to
provide this type of functionality.
On 10/22/18 12:30 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/19/18 9:06 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:06 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring
, typically some sort of lock or rcu would be used to
provide this type of functionality.
On 10/22/18 12:30 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/19/18 9:06 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:06 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring
On 10/31/18 8:32 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
>
> Thanks to review my patch.
>
> On 18. 10. 31. 오전 8:04, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Jaewon,
>>
>> On 10/25/18 9:39 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>> This patch supports dynamic device-tree f
On 10/31/18 8:32 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
>
> Thanks to review my patch.
>
> On 18. 10. 31. 오전 8:04, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> Hi Jaewon,
>>
>> On 10/25/18 9:39 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
>>> This patch supports dynamic device-tree f
Hi Jaewon,
On 10/25/18 9:39 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> This patch supports dynamic device-tree for AMBA device.
Add AMBA devices and buses to of_platform_notify() so that dynamic device-tree
will support AMBA.
> The AMBA device must be registered on the AMBA bus, not the platform bus.
>
>
Hi Jaewon,
On 10/25/18 9:39 AM, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> This patch supports dynamic device-tree for AMBA device.
Add AMBA devices and buses to of_platform_notify() so that dynamic device-tree
will support AMBA.
> The AMBA device must be registered on the AMBA bus, not the platform bus.
>
>
On 10/19/18 9:06 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:06 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:34:26PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
>
On 10/19/18 9:06 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 7:06 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:34:26PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
>
On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:34:26PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetree/bas
On 10/18/18 12:32, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 05:34:26PM -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetree/bas
On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700,
On 10/18/18 12:57, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 19:49 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>
>>> On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700,
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
>>>> I intended to communicate,
On 10/18/18 07:56, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 12:53 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Trying to understand how you are understanding my comment vs what
>>>> I intended to communicate,
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Repeating my comment on version 1:
>>
On 10/17/18 12:08, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 11:49 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Repeating my comment on version 1:
>>
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information
On 10/16/18 19:41, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 19:10 -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers
>>> publishing
>>> private information
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
On 10/16/18 07:58, James Bottomley wrote:
> The current code of conduct has an ambiguity in the it considers publishing
> private information such as email addresses unacceptable behaviour. Since
> the Linux kernel collects and publishes email addresses as part of the patch
> process, add an
Hi Alan,
Thanks for all the suggestions!
On 10/16/18 13:04, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks for all your work on this!
>
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live device
Hi Alan,
Thanks for all the suggestions!
On 10/16/18 13:04, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:28 PM wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks for all your work on this!
>
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live device
On 10/15/18 17:35, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 17:27:01 -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com said:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetree/bas
On 10/15/18 17:35, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 17:27:01 -0700, frowand.l...@gmail.com said:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetree/bas
On 10/15/18 13:38, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:09 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/18 01:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>
>>> Please say explicitly that tree_version contains a 32-bit unsigned
>>> decimal number, which is incremente
On 10/15/18 13:38, Alan Tull wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 1:09 PM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>
>> On 10/15/18 01:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>
>>> Please say explicitly that tree_version contains a 32-bit unsigned
>>> decimal number, which is incremente
On 10/15/18 01:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 3:36 AM wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetr
On 10/15/18 01:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 3:36 AM wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand
>>
>> When an overlay is applied or removed, the live devicetree visible in
>> /proc/device-tree/, aka /sys/firmware/devicetr
On 10/10/18 14:03, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/10/18 13:40, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:49 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/18 23:04, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
>>>>
>>&g
On 10/10/18 14:03, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 10/10/18 13:40, Alan Tull wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:49 AM Frank Rowand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/18 23:04, frowand.l...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Rowand
>>>>
>>>>
>>&g
On 10/10/18 15:33, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Josh Triplett :
>>> The words removed by this patch are a political statement.
>>
>> Choosing not to say those words is a political statement.
>
> The situation is not symmetrical. Choosing the protected classes
> in the CoC is a *change* in its
On 10/10/18 15:33, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Josh Triplett :
>>> The words removed by this patch are a political statement.
>>
>> Choosing not to say those words is a political statement.
>
> The situation is not symmetrical. Choosing the protected classes
> in the CoC is a *change* in its
; nationality,
> -personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
> +our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
>
> Our Standards
> =
>
The words removed by this patch are a political statement. They do not belong
in the document.
Acked-by: Frank Rowand
; nationality,
> -personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
> +our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
>
> Our Standards
> =
>
The words removed by this patch are a political statement. They do not belong
in the document.
Acked-by: Frank Rowand
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
> The current code of
On 10/06/18 14:36, James Bottomley wrote:
> From 4a614e9440148894207bef5bf69e74071baceb3b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: James Bottomley
> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 14:21:56 -0700
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] code-of-conduct: Fix the ambiguity about collecting email
> addresses
>
> The current code of
On 09/26/18 14:05, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 03:21:27PM +, Andre Kalb wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I have used an other hardware to check the patch. I hope it doesn’t matter.
>> I added few lines at the untitest.c. All existing unittest use an attached
>> sysfs, therefore the
On 09/26/18 14:05, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 03:21:27PM +, Andre Kalb wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I have used an other hardware to check the patch. I hope it doesn’t matter.
>> I added few lines at the untitest.c. All existing unittest use an attached
>> sysfs, therefore the
p = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/testcase-device2");
> + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> + unittest(pdev, "device 2 creation failed\n");
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + unittest(irq < 0 && irq != -EPROBE_DEFER,
> + "device parsing error failed - %d\n", irq);
> + }
>
> np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/platform-tests");
> unittest(np, "No testcase data in device tree\n");
>
Thank you Guenter.
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
p = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/testcase-device2");
> + pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> + unittest(pdev, "device 2 creation failed\n");
> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + unittest(irq < 0 && irq != -EPROBE_DEFER,
> + "device parsing error failed - %d\n", irq);
> + }
>
> np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/platform-tests");
> unittest(np, "No testcase data in device tree\n");
>
Thank you Guenter.
Reviewed-by: Frank Rowand
201 - 300 of 1649 matches
Mail list logo
