linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio/davinci: add interrupt support for GPIOs 16-31

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]

Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:18:55 -0400
From:	Vitaly Andrianov <vitalya@...com>
To:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>
CC:	Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio/davinci: add interrupt support for GPIOs 16-31



On 07/17/2015 01:02 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Thursday 16 July 2015 11:11 PM, Vitaly Andrianov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/16/2015 05:04 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 14 July 2015 07:31 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Vitaly Andrianov <vitalya@...com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interrupts for GPIOs 16 through 31 are enabled by bit 1 in the
>>>>> "binten" register (offset 8). Previous versions of GPIO only
>>>>> used bit 0, which enables GPIO 0-15 interrupts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Reece Pollack <x0183204@...com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Andrianov <vitalya@...com>
>>>>
>>>> Sekhar/Kevin: OK with this? We don't have a maintainer
>>>> listed for davinci GPIO so I assume it's you guys...
>>>
>>> Hi Linus, I had reviewed this patch and there was a v2 send based on my
>>> comments on July 03.
>>>
>>>> Should this be tagged for stable?
>>>
>>> Not sure about that. It affects Keystone devices. Vitaly?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sekhar
>>>
>> We used this patch for a long time. So, I guess it is stable.
>
> You misunderstood. Should this patch be marked for backporting to older
> kernels because it fixes a critical issue on devices otherwise working
> in that kernel? See Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar
>
Sorry. As I understand from the stable_kernel_rules.txt this patch _IS_ 
_NOT_ for "-stable"

Thanks,
Vitaly
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/