[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1560025541.1815.11@crapouillou.net>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2019 22:25:41 +0200
From: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>, od@...c.me,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: lb60: Fix pin mappings
Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 15:39, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 12:14 PM Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
> wrote:
>> Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 0:10, Linus Walleij
>> <linus.walleij@...aro.org> a
>> écrit :
>> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 6:34 PM Paul Cercueil
>> <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The pin mappings introduced in commit 636f8ba67fb6
>> >> ("MIPS: JZ4740: Qi LB60: Add pinctrl configuration for several
>> >> drivers")
>> >> are completely wrong. The pinctrl driver name is incorrect, and
>> the
>> >> function and group fields are swapped.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes: 636f8ba67fb6 ("MIPS: JZ4740: Qi LB60: Add pinctrl
>> >> configuration for several drivers")
>> >> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>
>> >
>> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
>> >
>> > Such things happen. Are you planning to phase all the board files
>> over
>> > to use devicetree eventually?
>>
>> Yes, that's definitely what's planned; right now the blockers are
>> patchsets [1] and [2]. [1] is ignored by everybody because there's
>> no
>> maintainer for drivers/memory/. [2] is a year-long effort that still
>> doesn't show me the light at the end of the tunnel.
>>
>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/6/4/743
>> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/21/679
>
> What? That's unacceptable, the last resort is usually to send the
> patches to Andrew Morton (whether fair or not) when nothing gets
> applied.
>
> In this case I would however encourage the MIPS maintainer to
> simply queue this stuff in the MIPS tree as blocking his arch work
> if not merged, Ralf would you consider just queueing this?
> I do not think the other Linus would mind.
It's not that critical - it's not blocking until [2] gets merged too.
But yes, it's been sitting idle for a while.
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists