[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200916143241.GL3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 17:32:41 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dan Scally <djrscally@...il.com>
Cc: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@....fi>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
rafael@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com,
kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com, jorhand@...ux.microsoft.com,
kitakar@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] software_node: Add support for fwnode_graph*() family
of functions
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:22:10PM +0100, Dan Scally wrote:
> On 16/09/2020 10:17, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:28:27AM +0100, Daniel Scally wrote:
...
> >> @@ -450,7 +455,7 @@ software_node_get_next_child(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> >> c = list_next_entry(c, entry);
> >> else
> >> c = list_first_entry(&p->children, struct swnode, entry);
> >> - return &c->fwnode;
> >> + return software_node_get(&c->fwnode);
> > This looks like a bugfix that probably should or could be backported. Could
> > you make it a separate patch, with a Fixes: tag?
> Yes, sure. That does change how some of the other code would need to
> work though if this patch were applied but not the separated one. Sorry;
> not sure what's the best way to proceed in that case. Should I just note
> that this patch depends on the prior application of the separated one?
It's easy to achieve. You may create a series of two, where the second one
dependant on the first one and first one has a Fixes tag and subject to
backport. I guess that's what Sakari meant.
> >> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists