[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170620092933.m4pbbjcpw4zjas3i@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:29:33 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Shah, Nehal-bakulchandra" <Nehal-bakulchandra.Shah@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"Xue, Ken" <Ken.Xue@....com>,
"S-k, Shyam-sundar" <Shyam-sundar.S-k@....com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl/amd: Use regular interrupt instead of chained
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:22:05AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> If the interrupt _IS_ screaming because the hardware is buggered, then the
> nobody cared thing will detect it and switch it off. That's all what we can
> do, aside of not loading the driver at all.
>
> But that's way better than silently locking up the box forever.
Sounds to me we should route this fix to stable.
Looking at Linus' branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git/commit/?h=fixes&id=ba714a9c1dea85e0bf2899d02dfeb9c70040427c
patch isn't tagged for stable.
Should it be?
It certainly is an improvement of the situation.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists