From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] hwrng: Add support for STMicroelectronics' RNG IP Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:50:34 +0100 Message-ID: <20150930145034.GE27197@x1> References: <1442497557-9271-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150918140756.GK9249@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918151137.GA10763@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150918155112.GE3218@x1> <20150929142932.GY27197@x1> <20150930134757.GA18408@gondor.apana.org.au> <20150930141539.GD27197@x1> <20150930142812.GA19039@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, Peter Korsgaard , Fabio Estevam , Kieran Bingham , "kernel@stlinux.com" , Linus Torvalds To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:33595 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753117AbbI3Ouj (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:50:39 -0400 Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so202346409wic.0 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 07:50:38 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150930142812.GA19039@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 30 Sep 2015, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > I prefer not to merge patches that cannot be tested. Without > > > the DT bits in patch 6 the other five patches are useless. So > > > I think patch 6 should be applied together with the other five > > > which add the driver. > >=20 > > That's crazy talk. If all subsystem maintainers abide by this rule > > there would be chaos. We'd either need to send pull-requests to ea= ch > > other for every set which crossed a subsystems boundary, or 1000's = of > > merge conflicts would ensue at merge time. > >=20 > > The (sensible) rule we normally stick to is; as long as there isn't > > a _build_ dependency, then the patches should filter though their > > respective trees; _functional_ dependencies have nothing to do with > > us as maintainers. Another chaos preventing rule we abide by is; t= hou > > shalt not apply patches belonging to other maintainer's subsystems > > without the appropriate Ack-by and a subsequent "you may take this > > though your tree" and/or "please send me an immutable pull-request"= =2E >=20 > So you want the series to be merged in two parts via two different > trees where neither can be tested? That sounds crazy to me. Who is going to checkout the HWRNG tree and run-test it on it's own on all of the required hardware? No one. Agreed, subsystem trees should be bisectably (new word? :D) buildable as per my first rule above, but that's it. Per-subsystem repos are not designed to be tested for full-functionality orthogonally, that's the point of Stephen's -next tree. Please take my other points into consideration too. The kernel would be unmainatinable if we all stuck to your rule. No-one else has that rule, and for good reason. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog